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.
This is an interesting qualitative study assessing the current status and potential causes underlying the low uptake of cataract surgery among community-diagnosed patients with cataract in Cameroon [
While the topic has its merits and the discussion is quite comprehensive, I believe the manuscript can be further improved after some points are addressed or some questions are clarified.
1. The lengths of both the main text and the abstract are a bit long. We suggest the authors to further condense the paper or move some parts to Multimedia Appendices.
2. Although 29 subjects were interviewed, only 9 of them were direct subjects. We are unsure if this is a sufficient number for such qualitative analysis.
3. The influence of indirect subjects' opinions on the decision of the direct subjects was not particularly discussed.
4. Considering the potentially different weights of direct versus indirect subjects' opinions in the decision, whether the quotes were taken from direct subjects should be shown.
5. We are no experts of traditional medicine, but is there anything to be noted about these therapies? (Maybe certain therapies were helpful from the patients' perspectives?) We are unsure if these should be taken into consideration when assessing the “Knowledge and awareness” and “reasons of refusal.”
6. The “poor outcome” of prior cataract surgeries was mentioned in the
7. There are still some grammatical mistakes that should be checked and amended.
8. Please make sure to provide the full spellings of all abbreviated words at first use (eg, “MICEI” and “FGDs”).
9. The table did not show the particular demographics of the direct subjects (which may help reveal other socioeconomic factors influencing the decision or limitation of the study).
10. How is the surgery acceptance or backlog situation for community cataract screening programs conducted in nearby countries with a similar socioeconomic status? While this is not the focus of the study, if there are available data, it would be good to include some general information (this will help justify the study aim and support the overall results).
The authors have addressed most of the comments. While the scientific content is acceptable after the revision, it is still recommended that the authors shortened the article to <6500-7000 words. No further suggestions are enclosed.
None declared.