Digital Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a comprehensive review. It is well written and makes a much needed contribution on this emerging and important topic in SRH .
Good luck
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a well written review of the literature on digital adolescent SRH in LMI countries. However, there is a need for more information on how you did the review, on the papers that you included and how you did the evaluation of quality. There should be sufficient information in the review (including additional material if submitted) to enable another research to replicate your research.
1. The review is headed as a scoping review and you indicate that you have followed PRISMA Guidelines. A completed PRISMA check list for scoping reviews needs to be completed and submitted as additional material.
2. However, I am not convinced that you have done a scoping review. In places it reads more like a systematic review and narrative synthesis. L59-62 on p 2 refers to a systematic review. Clarification is needed - did you do a systematic review and narrative synthesis or a scoping review?
3. Your list of key words seems adequate for SRH, technology and age. However, why did you only include a few countries by name? Why not include all LMICs?
4. While you list the key words it is usual in literature reviews to provide an example of the key words as used to search for at least one of the data bases used. As you only searched two data bases you could give the details for both. This can be submitted as additional material.
5. You need to justify why you used the data bases to search that you used and why you only searched two data bases.
5. You need to give more details of how you screened the papers. Did you use a tool such as Covidence? Who did the screening and how may of the research team were involved? Did two (or more ) researchers screen the papers? How were differences resolved?
6. You need to give more detail of how the data was extracted and to submit the data extraction table(s) as additional material and refer the reader to them.
7. You indicate that 79 papers met your inclusion criteria and then refer to subgroups of these papers and which ones you used to answer your questions. It would be helpful if you had a table in the text showing how may papers were used for answering which questions.
8. You need to give more detail of how you analysed the data you extracted. Did you extract the and review the data to answer your questions or did you do it in such a way that made it possible for you to find answers to questions you did not think to ask?
8. It would be useful to know which countries the research reported in the papers was carried out in categorised by Upper-Middle-Income, Lower-Middle-Income and Low-Income. The country(is) for each paper can be included on the extraction table and a summary table included in the report.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for pulling this interesting and informative article together. It addresses a very important subject: digital space and the sexual and reproductive health of adolescents. I have a few minor comments to improve this work.
-The abstract is well-written and covers all the components of an effective abstract.
-In the introduction, insert a citation in the first three lines.
-The three primary research questions for this review are adequate to achieving the broader objective of the review.
-In the results section, just say, 'push interventions involved sending reminders......' line 159
-the study cited (22) in line 184 is not valid. Could the authors revise this?
-Include a section on the limitations of this study.
I wish you all the best in revising this work. Once it is published online, I will be happy to read it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
