This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Peer Reviews (247)

Published on in Vol 3, No 2 (2022): Apr-Jun

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/38872, first published .
Peer Review of “Exploring the Reasons for Low Cataract Surgery Uptake Among Patients Detected in a Community Outreach Program in Cameroon: Focused Ethnographic Mixed Methods Study”

Peer Review of “Exploring the Reasons for Low Cataract Surgery Uptake Among Patients Detected in a Community Outreach Program in Cameroon: Focused Ethnographic Mixed Methods Study”

Peer Review of “Exploring the Reasons for Low Cataract Surgery Uptake Among Patients Detected in a Community Outreach Program in Cameroon: Focused Ethnographic Mixed Methods Study”

Authors of this article:

Haleh Ayatollahi1 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by (1) Tweetations (2) Metrics

    Peer-Review Report


    This is a peer-review report submitted for the paper “Exploring the Reasons for Low Cataract Surgery Uptake Among Patients Detected in a Community Outreach Program in Cameroon: Focused Ethnographic Mixed Methods Study.”


    Major Comments

    1. It is better to choose keywords that are MeSH terms.
    2. It is better to integrate all sections before Methods as an Introduction section.
    3. How did the researchers develop the interview guide?
    4. The trustworthiness of the results and validity and reliability need to be discussed separately for each research method.
    5. More details should be added to the Document Review section.
    6. How many participants took part in the focus groups?
    7. The Results section needs to be expanded.
    8. In the Discussion section, the summary of results does not need to be supported by the participant’s quotes.
    9. The Discussion section needs to be revised to be more integrated.
    10. Strengths and limitations of the study can be reported at the end of the discussion section.
    11. Research implications can be reported before conclusions.

    General Comments

    I appreciate the authors [1] for their time and efforts to implement our suggestions. It seems that the manuscript has been improved; however, some issues are still remaining.

    Specific Comments
    Major Comments
    1. The author response letter only includes the authors’ responses without mentioning the reviewers' comments. For some comments, they just said “done” and I have no idea what the comments were and what they exactly did. So, a complete response letter needs to be uploaded.
    2. The Discussion section needs to be integrated to show an integrated Discussion for the whole research. In the current format, it seems fragmented.
    3. Also, the subsections under the Conclusions section need to be moved to the end of the Discussion section or be integrated with other existing subheadings in this section.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    1. Mbwogge M, Nkumbe HE. Exploring the reasons for low cataract surgery uptake among patients detected in a community outreach program in Cameroon: focused ethnographic mixed methods study. JMIRx Med 2022;3(2):e35044 [FREE Full text]

    Edited by E Meinert; This is a non–peer-reviewed article. submitted 19.04.22; accepted 19.04.22; published 09.06.22

    Copyright

    ©Haleh Ayatollahi. Originally published in JMIRx Med (https://med.jmirx.org), 09.06.2022.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIRx Med, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://med.jmirx.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.