A Multi-Methodological Exploration of Persecution Experiences and Related Injuries of Sexually Minoritized Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Nairobi, Kenya

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A very interesting and well written paper on a vulnerable population. It is very well written and progresses smoothly to the conclusions.  It is an important topic, especially given the differences between most of the Western governments who have made peace and accepted gay and Trans people.   The qualitative methods are well described, although it would be helpful to know which of the recruitment avenues worked best.    I think that the pictures are a good idea to give the reader a fuller understanding of their situation ,although some of them, such as Figure 8,  are hard for the reader  to make out. Is it possible, now that Covid is under control, to have the participants prioritize those which they feel are most meaningful?  

Edits:  the word 'same' is left out of the first sentence of the introduction.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough review. Please see the attachment for our responses to the comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for this interesting paper that provides important insights into the lived experiences of MSM/bisexual men, who are also refugees/asylum seekers, currently living in Kenya.

The paper is well written and structured overall, and I have only minor comments/recommendations below. The most important is to address the risk of identifying respondents in some of the pictures. 

INTRODUCTION

This section provides a helpful background to the topic, and justification for the study. There is useful detail about the experiences of MSM/bisexual asylum seekers and refugees in other locations.  

METHODS

This section provides useful detail of your methodology, and the source of your data. You describe the recruitment and methodology in some depth, especially the analysis process. This is especially useful, in order the support the findings of this (qualitative) study. I appreciated the use of photovoice in this study – this is an excellent way to gather insights into the lived experiences of people and their responses to what they see around them (and the memories that are evoked). 

I have one comment – it could be useful for the reader to have a bit more information about the main reason(s) the respondents came to Kenya in the first place (e.g., economic migrancy, escaping persecution in their home country) if this information is available. This can be summarised in a sentence or two. 

I note that ethical approval was granted for the study.

RESULTS

These are described in depth and provide important insights into the lives of the participants and their negative themes. The themes seem appropriate, and the use of interview excerpts is illustrative. It’s pleasing to see these have been edited for clarity. 

The photographs are used appropriately, though I did have a slight concern about Figures 5, 6, 9, and 10. Is there a danger of the person/people being identified in these? I would recommend that these pictures are further anonymised (blurring?) to guarantee there is no risk of a breach of confidentiality. 

Two other minor queries: 

1.     Did the negative experiences described by respondents all happen just in Kenya? At times it’s not clear. Can this be clarified?

2.     Can something more be added about the input or contribution (or not) of existing Kenyan MSM support groups/NGOs? Especially around specific barriers preventing their access to this group (asylum seekers/refugees)?

DISCUSSION/LIMITATIONS AND STRENGTHS

You draw on your findings and relate these to what is currently known in the field. The focus on layered stigma and discrimination is especially valuable here. 

The limitations and strengths you identify are appropriate.

CONCLUSION

I note that you make recommendations for further research based on your findings. There is clearly much work to be done to address the needs of this group. 

REVIEWER RECOMMENDATIONS 

Mandatory

1.     Further anonymise Figures 5, 6, 9, and 10.

2.     Ensure clarity around where respondents experienced negative experiences (i.e., in Kenya).

Suggested

3.     If information is available, add a little more detail about the main reasons the respondents travelled to Kenya. 

4.     If information is available, add more detail about the contribution (or not) of existing MSM support networks in Kenya – especially around barriers to accessing MSM asylum seekers/refugees.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough review and comments. Please see attached for our responses to your comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx