Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Maintenance of Smoking Cessation in Korean Single Mothers
Version: 
0 
Date: 
03 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
The article Maintenance of Smoking Cessation in Korean Single Mothers reports
the smoking cessation rates of 77 women who are smokers and single mothers
(both pregnant and non-pregnant) at 4 and 24 weeks after undergoing a 6-month
smoking cessation program. 
The cessation rates were 
54% at 4 weeks and only
18% at 24 weeks post-intervention. 
Factors associated with maintenance of
cessation include number of number of counseling sessions, levels of exhaled
CO, pregnancy, and drinking.
I had reviewed a previous version of this manuscript and the authors are to be
congratulated for the improvements they have made, namely that they have
limited the number of timepoints for reporting the outcome. 
The following issues
remain to be addressed:
1. Sample: 
As a convenience sample, it would be helpful to explain more about
the single mother facility from which the sample is drawn -- specifically, how
much are the residents' activity regulated? 
Do they have any regulations on when
and where they can smoke? 
Were they required to participate in the study?
Would they have any adverse consequences for not participating?
2. 
Sample: 
Related to 1) above: 
It seems to be implied that all 77 women were
followed for the whole 6 months. 
Did that mean they all remained residents
during that time? 
Was that a criterion for being included in the study? 
3. One of the major issues with the manuscript as it currently stands is that the
Results section needs to be re-ordered. 
All descriptive statistics should be
reported first and included in Table 2. 
Then the unadjusted primary outcomes --
54% abstinence at 4 weeks and only 18% at 24 weeks overall. 
Then the bivariate
associations should be reported for 4 weeks and 24 weeks (per the p-values in
Table 3) for all predictors (including the ones not currently listed in Table 2, but
which should be -- those related to reasons for quitting, supporters, pregnancy,
drinking). 
Then report the logistic regression model results as in Table 5, but
with unadjusted and then adjusted ORs.
4. Related to #3 above, in the Methods, there should be a better description of
how the logistic regression model was built (i.e., how variables were selected for
inclusion and exclusion), particularly if a multivariable logistic regression model
is presented (recommended).
A few other notes:
5 Re: Number of counseling sessions: 
This is noted to be significantly associated
with maintenance of smoking cessation, but it should not be implied that this
means greater exposure to the program means better success. 
It is just as likely
that it means that the type of people who adhere to a program for whatever
reasons are also more likely to meet expectations of the study -- i.e. compliant
people comply.
6. Re: CO level: 
This is also highlighted as being significantly associated with
maintenance of smoking cessation. However, this seems to be a better outcome
measure than self-report. 
As such, would use this measure more as a gold
standard to assess the validity of self-report rather than as a predictor.
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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 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.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes