Corrections made
General
The entire manuscript has been reviewed for grammatical errors. These have been corrected and
the use of language has been improved upon. Acronyms have been stated fully at the time of first
use.
Specific
Abstract
Method
1. The intervention and control groups have been differentiated re-writing the second
sentence as ‘The study design was quasi-experimental. The study was carried out among
women between the ages of 25 and 64 years in Odogbolu (intervention) and Ikenne
(control) Local Government Areas of Ogun State.’ Instead of ‘Intervention and control
groups each had 350 women who were selected by multistage random sampling
technique.’
2. It is interviews that are semi-structured and not questionnaires.
Result:
1. “The intervention raised the level of awareness of cervical cancer to 100% p<0.0001) and
also the level of awareness of cervical screening to 100% (p<0.0001).” was shortened to
“The intervention raised the level of awareness and screening of cervical cancer to 100%
(p<0.0001).
2. ‘There was increase in the proportion of women who had done cervical screening done
4.3% to 8.3% (p=0.038).’ was corrected to read ‘There was increase in the proportion of
women who had undertaken cervical screening from 4.3% to 8.3% (p=0.038).’
3. The terms ‘Awareness’ and ‘Knowledge’ do not mean the same thing. The necessary
adjustments have been made in the manuscript to underline this fact.
4. The last statement under result has been reviewed tom ‘The major reason stated by the
women for not having had cervical screening done was lack of awareness about cervical
cancer and screening.’ from ‘The major barrier to cervical screening is lack of awareness
about cervical cancer and screening.
Conclusion:
1. “It also improves the uptake of screening services.” was changed to “It also improves the
uptake of cervical cancer screening.”
Background
1. The background information was shortened.
2. The statement ‘Cancer of the cervix is seen only in women because men do not normally
have cervix.’ was deleted.
Methodology
Sample size
1. The section on sample size calculation was removed and reported to conform to how
sample sizes are reported in many other BMC Public Health studies.
2. The sampling procedure was reviewed to make it easier to follow and understand.
Data collection instrument:
1. This aspect was improved to highlight in more details what the questionnaire assessed.
Intervention: The intervention was applied to the intervention group while the control group
received a placebo (education on breast cancer). The study was a quantitative study, therefore
FGDs were not conducted. The reference to FGD should never have been made.
1. ‘The health education received by the control group on breast cancer included didactic
lectures, practical sessions and participatory learning sessions.
2. Multiple channels were used to educate the intervention group. Didactic lectures were
given. The lectures covered topics on the epidemiology, risk factors, symptoms and
prevention of cervical cancer.’ was inserted.
3. ‘The women were encouraged to answer question that were raised before the facilitator
made clarifications as necessary.’
4. ‘The women were educated batches of 50 per batch. Each batch was trained for one day
for 7 hours from 09.00 to 16.00. Health education intervention lasted 7 days each for
intervention and control groups.
Post intervention activities:
1. The issue of how the immediate post-test assessment was conducted was addressed with
the inclusion of the sentence. The essence of the assessment was not to determine the
impact of the intervention but to confirm that the participants understood the health
education intervention. The sentence ‘The participants were required to answer 20 posttest questions after each training day.’ was added.
Results
1. The first sentence was adjusted to read ‘were available to complete the study
questionnaire’ as opposed to ‘were available to complete the study’.
2. Effect of Health education on the uptake of cervical screening
‘Table 3 shows that the uptake of cervical screening was also significantly raised among
the intervention group; whereas, the control group remained essentially the same with no
statistically significant change. The willingness to get cervical screening done was
slightly raised in both intervention and control group. However, the increases were not
statistically significant.’ was corrected to now read ‘Table 3 shows that there was a 4%
increase in the uptake of cervical screening among the intervention group (p=0.038);
whereas, the control group remained essentially the same increasing by 0.4%, a change
which was not statistically significant (p=0.834). The willingness to get cervical
screening done was slightly raised in both the intervention (+2.6%) and control group
(+2.0%). However, the increases were not statistically significant (p=0.283and p=0.373
respectively).’
3. Barriers to uptake of cervical screening
Results were added to clarify the comments made.
Discussion
1. The discussion has been improved on to ensure that more appropriate comparisons are
made and adequate reasons for similarities and dissimilarities are given.
2. Every reference to statistical result has been removed from the discussion.
3. Limitation of study
Tables
1. Table 2 is quite clear. It is an aggregation of two by two tables of Awareness and uptake
(yes or no) vs. Group (intervention and control) at baseline. It underscores the similarities
between the two groups prior to intervention.
2. The frequencies and percentages of awareness of cervical screening (in table 3) are
correct.
3. The original Tables 4 and 5 showed some of the variables which were used to assess the
knowledge and perception of the participants about cervical cancer and screening.
However, the contents have been aggregated into the knowledge and scores. The tables
are not absolutely necessary and have therefore been removed from this new submission.
Besides, the removal of the table reduces the number of tables in the manuscript without
taking anything away from it.
4. The titles of the tables have been improved upon.
Recommendation
1. ‘Knowledge and perception of cervical cancer and screening in rural communities can be
improved by giving appropriate health education intervention. The creation of awareness
and improvement of access to screening services are crucial to the success of a cervical
cancer screening programme.’ Was added to the conclusion