JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Investigating the structural validity and reliability of the Sexual Health Literacy for Adults
(SHELA) questionnaire among a sample of women in Qazvin, Iran.
Version: 1 Date: 02 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The manuscript reports on the
psychometric properties of the Sexual Health Literacy for Adults (SEHLA) which was
originally developed in Iran. Surprisingly despite the acceptable psychometric properties of the
questionnaire, the need for the present study was not specified and sufficient explanations were
not given as to why there is a need to perform another psychometric evaluation. I think the
paper does not add any new information to the existing evidence and the study is a complete
failure. However, the paper also suffers from other shortcomings which I have highlighted some
as follows:
- The type of study is reported inaccurately.
- In the results is written: “A total of 305 women were entered in the study and 5 were excluded”
but the sample size in the tables is 305.
- The exploratory factor analysis is redundant and should be deleted throughout the manuscript.
- The translation of some items is not correct, for example, item number 33 & 34.  These are
basically about men.
- The paper needs extensive English editing.
Title: Investigating the structural validity and reliability of the Sexual Health Literacy for Adults
(SHELA) questionnaire among a sample of women in Qazvin, Iran.
Version: 1 Date: 10 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
The Psychometrics properties of Sexual Health Literacy for Adults (SHELA) questionnaire for
women in Qazvin, Iran”
. This is an interesting and well-written study with novel findings. Some minor changes is
recommended to promote the quality of presenting the work.
1- In keywords, term Sexual Health should replace word SHELA
2- I suggest that the abstract of the article be more concise, especially the introduction
3- I advise the authors to find a native English speaker to proofread the manuscript. There are
numerous instances of improper grammar and sentence structure. Editing the paper by native
speakers is important in qualitative research. .
4- . In the introduction, it is necessary to provide more explanations about women's sexuality
in Iran in order to make it more understandable for non-Iranian audiences. I suggest using the
following articles
Mohammadi Gharehghani  A, Irandoost SF, khosravi B, , Soofizad G, ,  Barriers to condom
use among female sex workers in Tehran, Iran: A qualitative study, International Journal of
Women's Health.2020:12 681–689
Yoosefi  lebni J, Irandoost SF, Ziapour A, Mohammad Ali Mohammadi Gharehghani,  Ebadi
Fard Azar F, Soofizad G, Khosravi B, Solhi M. Experiences and Challenges of Prostitute Women
in Iran: A Phenomenological Qualitative Study,  Heliyon 6(2020)
Kohan S, Mohammadi F, Mostafavi F, Gholami A. Being single as a social barrier to access
reproductive healthcare services by Iranian girls. International Journal of Health Policy and
Management. 2017;6(3):147.
5- The need for a study needs further explanation
6- In method session .
-Explain the exclusion and inclusion criteria
- Explain more about how participants access and select
- Your description of the data analysis method is incomplete and ambiguous. Please explain
further
-
7- In the discussion section,
-The discussion can be improved further by include more previous study, try to add more study
and be more logical.
-emphasize the new research findings and mention what your research added to the previous
research
-A lot of the discussion felt like it was either restating findings from the results or bringing up
findings that were not in the results, rather than really discussing what the results mean. I think
this paper would be much stronger if the results were expanded to really describe all the different
aspects of each category. Then, the discussion could focus on what this means and why it matters.
- Please mention the limitations and strengths of the research
Title: Investigating the structural validity and reliability of the Sexual Health Literacy for Adults
(SHELA) questionnaire among a sample of women in Qazvin, Iran.
Version: 3 Date: 20 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thanks to the respected authors for responding to the comments, but the article still has many
weaknesses and you have not been able to respond to my concerns. Especially in the method
and discussion section
Title: Investigating the structural validity and reliability of the Sexual Health Literacy for Adults
(SHELA) questionnaire among a sample of women in Qazvin, Iran.
Version: 3 Date: 06 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
1. No bivariate or multivariate analysis was conducted to understand the initial results.
2. Hetrogenity was not maintained in terms of ethnicity and socioeconomic status.
3. SRMSR of the revised model is missing.
4. RMSEA has not improved very significantly.
5. Moreover, how one can compare the model based on whether the change in index values is
significant or not.
Title: Investigating the structural validity and reliability of the Sexual Health Literacy for Adults
(SHELA) questionnaire among a sample of women in Qazvin, Iran.
Version: 3 Date: 10 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Abstract
1- At the end of the background, please add the objective of your study.
Background
2- In the sentence "Sexual health literacy is defined as "a set of knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs,
personal motivations and abilities used in accessing, understanding and evaluating information
related to sexual health" [11], for which the researchers found only one questionnaire [11]",
using two similar references sequential, is not valid. Please delete the first 11 references.
3- Why are the two last paragraphs inserted in reference 11?
4- Masoumi et al study assessed the validity and reliability of the sexual health literacy tool. The
necessity of your research should be written stronger. Only this sentence " Despite the acceptable
psychometric properties of this instrument in a sample of a mixed population (men and women)
[11], its validity and reliability in the female population were not clear" is not convinced me to
perform this research.
Methods
5- This sentence" The Ethical Committee of Qazvin University of Medical Sciences approved
the study. The ethics code of this study was IR.QUMS.REC.1399.077.  After getting informed
consent from the participants, questionnaires were completed" is better to write under the
heading of "ethical consideration".
Discussion
6- In the first paragraph of the discussion, please use the only abbreviated form of the
questionnaire.
7- The number of articles used for writing the discussion is so little. You should apply more
articles.
8- According to your study limitations, what  activities were done to generalizable the results
of your study to the purpose population
References
9- The references should be inserted through Endnote software according to the journal
guideline.
10- The bibliographic information of some references is incomplete. Please edit them.
Title: Investigating the structural validity and reliability of the Sexual Health Literacy for Adults
(SHELA) questionnaire among a sample of women in Qazvin, Iran.
Version: 5 Date: 10 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
dear author
The study has successfully developed a a methodological and psychometric study of instruments
that was conducted among 310 women referring to health care centers in Qazvin, Iran in 2020.
Sampling was done using a one-step cluster method. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used
to evaluate the reliability of the questionnaire, and confirmatory factor analysis was used to
determine its construct validity by STATA 13.
I have a few comments: Minor essential correction
Spelling and grammar corrections need to be done.
Abstract
The abstract was well-written and explicit. In section of abstract please clear statistical and
analysis
Title: Investigating the structural validity and reliability of the Sexual Health Literacy for Adults
(SHELA) questionnaire among a sample of women in Qazvin, Iran.
Version: 5 Date: 15 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
1. The document suffer from poor writing style and will benefit greatly from a professional proof
reading. Redundant sentences exist in the introduction and discussion sections which made these
section lengthy.
2. The authors failed to describe the logic behind re-validation of the applied instrument on a
different sample, while the original work contained a sample of both men and women.
3. The authors did not explain whether they have used same sample for EFA and CFA in the
data analysis.
4. The authors failed to explain why they have selected SHELA for this validation study while
other instruments were designed by the Iranian researchers for sexual health literacy appraisal
as mentioned in the discussion section (instruments designed by Dabiri et al, Karimi et al).
5. The study limitations were written superficially (e.g. "The most important limitation of this
study was the lack of previous studies which in turn limited its comparability and drew attention
toward the necessity of conducting further studies in the future. Additionally, self-reporting
in completing the questionnaire was not expected to provide accurate information about the
participant"). The study limitations need to be based on the methodological limitations the might
pose uncertainties on the obtained results.
6. The stated inclusion criteria (i.e being female) is not correct and "having a minimum literacy"
is not clear.
Title: Investigating the structural validity and reliability of the Sexual Health Literacy for Adults
(SHELA) questionnaire among a sample of women in Qazvin, Iran.
Version: 5 Date: 26 Aug 2022
Reviewer:  Sina Ahmadi
Reviewer's report:
The topic of this paper is very relevant and interesting and the structure of the paper is good.
Also, authors try to response to the comments, but the article still has many weaknesses.
- The title of the article needs to be revised. The title should be consistent with the purpose of
the study and the statistical population under investigation.
- The introduction of the article is not coherent. It is better that the introduction deals with
sexual health literacy and its problem among women and its consequences, not health literacy.
These two issues are different. Sexual health literacy enables an understanding and application
of sexual health information and has benefits beyond health. Health literacy is an important
element for achieving cognitive skills in health promotion.
- Other comments have been applied. The method, results and discussion of the article have
been improved.
Title: Investigating the structural validity and reliability of the Sexual Health Literacy for Adults
(SHELA) questionnaire among a sample of women in Qazvin, Iran.
Version: 8 Date: 21 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
1.There are still problems with English writing style and vague sentences such as "...and
suppressive styles that prevent them from having freedom in deciding to have safe sex". 2. The
study limitations were written superficially  and not based on a sound methodological appraisal
approach.
3. Being female was suggested to be an inclusion criteria while, study on only females was
addressed in the title. Therefore, the study sampling frame is adult women over 30 years old.
In selection of these women inclusion criteria should refer to characteristics of the women that
make them eligible to participate in this study.
Title: Investigating the structural validity and reliability of the Sexual Health Literacy for Adults
(SHELA) questionnaire among a sample of women in Qazvin, Iran.
Version: 8 Date: 04 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Martin Wiredu Agyekum
Reviewer's report:
Under methodology, get a separate section for study design.
Move all these “Sampling was done through a one-stage cluster method so that at first a list
of all health centres in Qazvin was prepared. Then, out of these 24 centers, 6 centers from the
north and south of the city were randomly selected and all women referring to these centers,
who met the inclusion criteria, entered the study after obtaining written informed consent” to the
sampling method. Also, change the word entered the study to “recruited to be part of the study”
I think Incomplete cannot be exclusion criteria
The sampling method is not clear. They need to move part of the sampling method in the first
paragraph under methods and materials to the section sampling methods. After which, they
should write the sampling technique very well.
The authors need to use a well-established formula to estimate the sample for the study. What
they have stated or written is not convincing.
Authors should look at the categorization of the variable. It is mutually exclusive “To score
the questionnaire, first, the raw scores for the four areas of health literacy were calculated, and
then they were converted into a standard score between 0 and 100, so that 0 to 50 showed
insufficient, 1.50 to 66 less enough, 66.1 to 84 adequate, and scores from 84,1 to 100 excellent
health literacies”
Under ethical consideration, you need to detach how the questionnaire was filled from the ethical
clearance number. Rather, get a separate sub-section on the data collection process. How were
respondents approached
Can they explain what they mean by patient and public involvement
Authors should indicate what each of the software (SPSS and STATA) was used for
Title: Investigating the structural validity and reliability of the Sexual Health Literacy for Adults
(SHELA) questionnaire among a sample of women in Qazvin, Iran.
Version: 12 Date: 03 Nov 2022
Reviewer:  Martin Wiredu Agyekum
Reviewer's report:
1. Under the questionnaire, they should separate results from the measurement of variables.
for instance, move this to the results section. "The validity and reliability of this questionnaire
were also reported to be 0.84 and 0.81 respectively. Also, the results of the exploratory
factor analysis indicated four factors of access, reading and understanding, evaluation and
analysis, and information use which showed 68.1% of the total variance. The convergent validity
evaluation showed correlation coefficients of 0.31 to 0.7 between the dimensions of the designed
questionnaire and the general health literacy questionnaire. Also, the internal consistency of the
questionnaire with Cronbach's alpha index for the identified factors was 0.84 to 0.94. In addition,
the categorical homogeneity of the questionnaire was calculated based on the ICC index and it
was 0.90 to 0.97 "
2. I don't understand the section on patient and public involvement. The authors should explain
well what they meant by that.
3. They should also look at the sample design again. Well,  I am yet to be convinced about the
design "methodological and psychometric study" they used.
Title: Investigating the structural validity and reliability of the Sexual Health Literacy for Adults
(SHELA) questionnaire among a sample of women in Qazvin, Iran.
Version: 12 Date: 05 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
1. Introduction: the logic behind psychometric analysis of the SHELA on a only female sample
was not explicitly provided and mentioned reasons for re-evaluation of the scale psychometric
properties are not satisfactory.
2. Methods: It was not mentioned that two other questionnaires i.e. Female Sexual Function
Index, and the Sexual Quality of Life-Female questionnaire were used for data collection and
only in result section the authors referred to their application for convergent validity appraisal. It
is also not clear from the provided explanation that EFA and CFA were conducted on the same
samples or different subgroups of the recruited women.
3. The study sample was biased toward inclusion of highly educated women (about 64% reported
to have an academic degree) which is quiet unusual regarding the obtained average education
level of the Iranian women in different national censuses.
4. Discussion: This section was written in an unstructured way and it is hard for a potential reader
to follow the authors interpretations of the study findings. The study limitations were written
superficially and major limitations of the study were not pinpointed (including probability of
sampling bias).
5. The whole text suffer from typos and grammatical errors and needs a professional proof
reading.
Title: Investigating the structural validity and reliability of the Sexual Health Literacy for Adults
(SHELA) questionnaire among a sample of women in Qazvin, Iran.
Version: 14 Date: 17 Nov 2022
Reviewer:  Martin Wiredu Agyekum
Reviewer's report:
I still don’t understand this section. "The validity and reliability of this questionnaire were
also reported to be 0.84 and 0.81 respectively. Also, the results of the exploratory factor
analysis indicated four factors of access, reading and understanding, evaluation and analysis,
and information use which showed 68.1% of the total variance. The convergent validity
evaluation showed correlation coefficients of 0.31 to 0.7 between the dimensions of the designed
questionnaire and the general health literacy questionnaire. Also, the internal consistency of the
questionnaire with Cronbach's alpha index for the identified factors was 0.84 to 0.94. In addition,
the categorical homogeneity of the questionnaire was calculated based on the ICC index and it
was 0.90 to 0.97"
Is it from the results of other studies or this study? If it is from this study, authors should move
it to the results section but if it is from other studies then they should cite or make reference to
the study at the beginning of the paragraph.
Title: Investigating the structural validity and reliability of the Sexual Health Literacy for Adults
(SHELA) questionnaire among a sample of women in Qazvin, Iran.
Version: 15 Date: 22 Nov 2022
Reviewer:  Martin Wiredu Agyekum
Reviewer's report:
I have no comment at this stage. I would like to commend the authors for their patience and
hardworking in revising the manuscript.
Title: Predictors of modern contraceptive use among reproductive age women in high fertility
countries in sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Demographic and Health Surveys
Version: 1 Date: 29 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Predictors of modern contraceptive use among reproductive age women in high fertility
countries in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Demographic and Health Surveys
Abstract
• The conclusion section – This should be written in line with your study results
• Please remove the plain English summary section; it’s not required in the journal style
Background
• Line 77 write SSA full meaning first
Method
• It’s impossible not to have references from lines 134 to 149. What are the previous studies on
SRH that have used the same explanatory variables using multi-level analysis? In East Africa,
or SSA. Cite a minimum of two to three
• Where is your ethical statement? It should be under the method section
Results
• Figure 1 should come before table 2
Other comments
• Before the conclusion section and immediately after strengths and limitations, please add a
section with “Implication to research and policy” – here, discuss your study's aim and result
towards helping research and policy in the region.
Title: Predictors of modern contraceptive use among reproductive age women in high fertility
countries in sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Demographic and Health Surveys
Version: 1 Date: 20 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
1. Interesting Research.  Sharpen the research problem and show the negative externalities of
the issue
2. The ambivalence in literature requires review to put the article in a proper context
3. Contextualization of findings with extant literature should be improved
Title: Predictors of modern contraceptive use among reproductive age women in high fertility
countries in sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Demographic and Health Surveys
Version: 3 Date: 07 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors did well revising the manuscript extensively. A few issues will still need to be
addressed.
1) The results in the abstract are not appropriately reported. If you are reporting significant
categories, then it is helpful to mention the reference category as well. The authors can just state
the significant variables and leave out the categories.
2)  The authors did not control for religion which is a critical variable. Although their reason for
excluding it is unclear to me, I will advise them to include it as a limitation.
3) The second paragraph (from lines 309 - 317) in the section titled "Strengths and Limitations"
appears quite misplaced. Is that also a limitation or strength?
4) The manuscript needs extensive proofreading. Several grammatical errors still exist.
Title: Mindfulness is associated with improved psychological well-being but no change in stress
biomarkers in breast cancer survivors with depression: a single group clinical pilot study
Version: 2 Date: 05 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
Explain the reason that study has not control group. More explain about the design of study?
Add about the consent letter in the study?
More discuss about the possible reasons of non-significant results of stress hormones in this
study.
Title: Mindfulness is associated with improved psychological well-being but no change in stress
biomarkers in breast cancer survivors with depression: a single group clinical pilot study
Version: 6 Date: 24 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
1. Providing the dates for when this study was conducted would help the reader understand that
it was conducted 6 years ago.
2. It would be helpful to know that only 2 people were missing data for the intention to treat
analyses.
3. Statistical analyses: “Assuming 80% power, #-level of 0.05, and allowing 30% drop-out, a
mean decrease of 4 points (SD 5) in BDI-II could be detected with 15 patients.”
It is commonly accepted that post hoc power analyses offer very little meaning to studies,
especially small sample studies, so I suggest removing this from the stats section. Recommend
the following readings:
Tukey JW. Tightening the clinical trial. Control Clin Trials. 1993;14:266-285.
Kraemer HC, Mintz J, Noda A, Tinklenberg J, Yesavage JA. Caution regarding the use of pilot
studies to guide power calculations for study proposals. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63(5):484-9.
Epub 2006/05/03. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.63.5.484. PubMed PMID: 16651505.
4. It is unsatisfactory that you cannot provide the reliability measures for the data that is presented
in this manuscript. In grant proposals it is custom to use reliability measures from previous/other
studies, but in manuscripts of original research findings it is custom to provide the reliability for
the data that is being presented, because that data should be readily available.