Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Barriers to Cervical Cancer Screening Faced by Immigrant Women in Canada: A 
Systematic Scoping Review  
 
Version: 2 Date: 19 Jun 2018  
 
Reviewer: Sheila Dunn  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors' revisions have addressed most of the comments made about the previous 
submission.  There are a couple of revisions I would suggest to further improve this manuscript.  
Abstract conclusion - I found the revision of the conclusion in the abstract to be confusing and 
suggest it be revised again.  The conclusion should relate to the research question and the results 
presented in the abstract.   
I agree the barriers relate to many dimensions but think that interjecting the ecological model 
dimensions h ere may confuse readers.  
I like the social ecological model framework and the diagram, but it appears seemingly out of 
nowhere at the end of the paper.  Unless it is more integrated into the methods and has a more 
fulsome discussion about the relevance of  the framework to readers (eg. health policy -makers, 
institutions, individual health care providers may be able to more clearly determine what kinds of 
interventions could improve screening rates, and how and where these could be implemented), I 
would sugg est removing it.  
There are a number of grammatical errors and typos throughout the revisions that need to be 
corrected.  
I was unable to see the tables/figures so cannot comment on any changes made to these.  
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 cont rols are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
  
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 manuscript or would you recomm end an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify 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 financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that 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 o f 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 I have no competing intere sts. 
 
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 for 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 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