Cancer Prevention and Cultural Continuity for Métis Peoples in Canada: A Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for allowing me to review this article of significant importance which focuses on Cancer Prevention and Cultural Continuity for Métis Peoples in Canada: A Scoping Review  

To carry out this review I used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist.

This article contains a significant amount of plagiarism from the thesis submitted to the College of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in the Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon by Maria Diaz Vega. I recommend that the authors thoroughly review the entire document.

The title is clear and coherent with the aim and content of the article, clearly identifying it as a scoping review.

Abstract

According to the checklist, there is a lack of background information before presenting the objective.

Keywords

The chosen keywords are pertinent to the study, but they do not match the indexed or Mesh terms. This choice could make it challenging to display your article when searched in the database utilizing indexed terms, decreasing its recognition and dissemination.

Introduction

The introduction justifies the review in the context of existing knowledge, explaining why the objectives of the review lend themselves to a scoping review approach. The introduction does not detail the research question, an aspect mentioned in the checklist used. I suggest adding it before the objectives. 

Methods

Indicate whether there is a review protocol, state if and where it can be accessed (e.g. a web address), and if available, provide registration information, including the registration number.

In search strategy is recommended to include a table or supplementary material indicating the search strategies used in each database and the search dates in each one. In line 109-110 the authors mention a supplemental material 1, but I don’t have access.

Results

Characteristics of sources of evidence are again in supplemental material 2 (line 186-187). It’s important to have access to all the material of the study.

Discussion/  Conclusion

Results are well summarised, mentioning the limitations of the review.

References

The references used are relevant to the study, but they are mostly from before 2019.

I want to congratulate the authors on this paper.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your feedback. Please find the responses to your comments and suggestions in the attached file.

Regards 

Maria 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thus is a well-written review that highlights the limited information available on cancer prevention in an underserved Aboriginal population in Canada. Some terms need to be explained for the benefit of a wider readership. Examples are (fiddle and) jigging and sweat lodges.  The authors may also consider the specific points below.

Lines 205-209.  Please specify which population the incidence rates for Métis are being compared with (general population? Non-Aboriginal population).  It would also be helpful to give numerical comparisons of the rates between the Métis and the comparator population.  Were the rates age-standardised?  Were rates compared for colorectal cancer?  The higher mortality of female Métis from intestinal and rectal cancer is mentioned at lines 200-202.

Lines 212-215.  Please specify the age range for these comparisons.

Lines 227-232.  Please give comparisons with data for the general population, otherwise these data are difficult to interpret.

Table 2.  Heading to column 1 is ‘Author (year)’, but data are reference numbers.  Please remove this inconsistency, preferably by giving Author, year and reference number for each study and modifying the column heading accordingly.

Figure 2.  For the third enabler reading from the left, should ‘finishing’ be ‘fishing’?

Line 400.  Again, ‘finishing’ or ‘fishing’?

Lines 401-402.  Are these sports?  Perhaps better to say ‘sports and other activities’?

Reference 29 is the same as reference 12.

A very simple PubMed search yielded several publications not present in the list of references.  While they may not be eligible for selection as studies for the review, is it the case that none of them contain any data or insights that might be helpful for background or discussion?  The publications in question are the following:
Creation of a Metis-Specific Instrument for Cancer Screening: A Scoping Review of Cancer-Screening Programs and Instruments. Letendre A, Khan M, Bartel R, Chiang B, James A, Shewchuk B, Kima J, Macphail M, Vaska M, Schwann M, Yang H, Kopciuk KA.Curr Oncol. 2023 Nov 9;30(11):9849-9859. doi: 10.3390/curroncol30110715.PMID: 37999135 

DECOLONIZING CANCER CARE IN CANADA. Beckett M, Cole K, White M, Chan J, McVicar J, Rodin D, Clemons M, Bourque JM.J Cancer Policy. 2021 Dec;30:100309. doi: 10.1016/j.jcpo.2021.100309. Epub 2021 Sep 25.PMID: 35559804 

 

Breast cancer in Indigenous women living in Canada: a scoping review protocol. Cole KM, Hutton B, Hamel C, Bourque JM, Arnaout A, Clemons M.JBI Evid Synth. 2021 Dec;19(12):3412-3422. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00522.PMID: 34171894

 

Enhancing access to cervical and colorectal cancer screening for women in rural and remote northern Alberta: a pilot study. Mema SC, Yang H, Elnitsky S, Jiang Z, Vaska M, Xu L.CMAJ Open. 2017 Oct 3;5(4):E740-E745. doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20170055.PMID: 28974533 

 

Improving cancer control in First Nations, Inuit and Metis Communities in Canada.

Beben N, Muirhead A.Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2016 Mar;25(2):219-21. doi: 10.1111/ecc.12479.PMID: 26918685 

 

Sociodemographic correlates of fecal immunotesting for colorectal cancer screening.

Crouse A, Sadrzadeh SM, de Koning L, Naugler C.Clin Biochem. 2015 Feb;48(3):105-9. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2014.12.004. Epub 2014 Dec 11.PMID: 25500418

 

Association of sociodemographic factors and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing.

Gorday W, Sadrzadeh H, de Koning L, Naugler C.Clin Biochem. 2014 Nov;47(16-17):164-9. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2014.08.006. Epub 2014 Aug 14.PMID: 25130956

Designing Tailored Messages about Smoking and Breast Cancer: A Focus Group Study with Youth. Bottorff JL, Haines-Saah R, Oliffe JL, Struik LL, Bissell LJL, Richardson CP, Gotay C, Johnson KC, Hutchinson P.Can J Nurs Res. 2014 Mar;46(1):66-86. doi: 10.1177/084456211404600106.PMID: 29509465

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A few points under Comments for Authors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your feedback. Please find the responses to your comments and suggestions in the attached file.

Regards 

Maria 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I would like to thank for the reformulations, and I believe that the article is fit for publication.

Congratulations on your work.