JMIRxMed JMIRx Med JMIRx Med 2563-6316 JMIR Publications Toronto, Canada v3i2e38872 10.2196/38872 Peer-Review Report Peer-Review Report 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” Meinert Edward Ayatollahi Haleh PhD 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3974-3648 Iran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran Apr-Jun 2022 9 6 2022 3 2 e38872 19 4 2022 19 4 2022 ©Haleh Ayatollahi. Originally published in JMIRx Med (https://med.jmirx.org), 09.06.2022. 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.

 https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/35044 https://med.jmirx.org/2022/2/e38899/ https://med.jmirx.org/2022/2/e35044/ ophthalmologic surgical procedures access to health care ophthalmology patient-centered care ethnography health knowledge attitudes practice

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.”

Round 1 Review Major Comments

It is better to choose keywords that are MeSH terms.

It is better to integrate all sections before Methods as an Introduction section.

How did the researchers develop the interview guide?

The trustworthiness of the results and validity and reliability need to be discussed separately for each research method.

More details should be added to the Document Review section.

How many participants took part in the focus groups?

The Results section needs to be expanded.

In the Discussion section, the summary of results does not need to be supported by the participant’s quotes.

The Discussion section needs to be revised to be more integrated.

Strengths and limitations of the study can be reported at the end of the discussion section.

Research implications can be reported before conclusions.

 Round 2 Review 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

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.

The Discussion section needs to be integrated to show an integrated Discussion for the whole research. In the current format, it seems fragmented.

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.

None declared.

 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