Write a comment

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The introduction clearly states the study objectives as: 1) To assess the demographic characteristics of the girls married before the age of 19, and 2) To explore the their opinions regarding early marriage.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat inappropriate

Essentially, a mixed methods study design is appropriate for the stated objectives, i.e., one quantitative and one qualitative. However, the description of how they methods were applied indicates major flaws and deviation from best practices. For example: a) the sample size for the quantitative component is only 20 participants which is too low; b) only two FGDs for the qualitative component also seems too low for data saturation; c) for lived opinions perhaps the best approach should have been indepth in addition to FGDs; d) the sampling technique also does clearly state how the participants were actually (only states "simple random sampling technique was applied" which is not sufficient for reproducibility purposes); e) the rationale for the sample size and selection also not clearly stated; f) a statement that "...participants were identified from all 15 Gram Panchayats..." remain ambiguous on how many participants were selected from each of these geographical locations. g) there are inconsistances in the stadard definition of early marriage as before 18, and the operational definition as marriage before 19 years, and this is not clearly state and justified. h) on the ethical considerations, it's not clear if the study received ethical clearance from an established REC; consent from parents or guardians who the girls seemed to acuse of their unfortunate fate of ending up into early marriage does not seem protective and also questions voluntaliness of participation and therefore data quality. By and large, we recommend that the author(s) consider stating it as a qualitative study, rather than a mixed methods design.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Neither supported nor unsupported

They are reasonable and they connect with the study objectives. However, we already noticed significant gaps in the methodology and thus the quality of data; especially in line with the quantitave study objective.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Somewhat appropriate and clear

The visualizations are very clear for both quantitative and qualitative data, except for a possible typographical error in tables 2 and 3 where the table headings are the same yet data varies in the 2nd column, and in table 1 where one participant is stated to have 2-3 children instead of clearly stating it as 2 or 3 since it's one individual. This is minus the methodological issues already highlighted.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Somewhat unclearly

The section reads more like a literature review than a discussion of the of the study findings in question. The statement that "These findings support the need for qualitative exploration through FGDs." sounds contractictory since the study employed FGDs for qualitative data collection. There's possible misleading interpretation of the quantitative findings given the small numbers, e.g. 10% for just 2 participants.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Moderately likely

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

No, it’s of low quality or is majorly flawed

It requires major changes to imptove the quality: the title (not a mixed methods study, and should clarify what is being studied e.g. lived experiences among ....), study population (under 18 vs under 19), objectives (quantitave objective not supported in the design), among others.

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

No, it needs a major revision

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.