Review badges
4 pre-pub reviews
0 post-pub reviews
  • Basic reporting

    good. some areas need more details like the interview guide (even though a reference is given). the theory on which the qualitative data was analysed- could make it more clearer to read.

    Experimental design

    A retrospective cohort was chosen, however the limitation of a retrospective interview has not been discussed. It would make sense to add them.

    Validity of the findings

    Conclusion is solid. Again because of the retrospective nature of questioning the data should be viewed with caution - due to underestimating or overestimation have not been clearly discussed.

    Comments for the author

    Good work which could have implication in prevention literature.

    Published in
    Ongoing discussion