<p>This study on quality improvement was good and highly welcome. However, the methods were highly deficient and non-reproducible. In the first stage, FGD was conducted. How many? What was the number of participants per FGD? Who conducted the FGD? The mentors or program members? How was it analyzed? What tool was used and what are some items from the tool? For stage 2, Mentors met to review feedback from trainees and mentors: when and how was it collected? Who collected it? How was it analyzed? What are the key features of the feedback tool?&nbsp;</p><p>For clarity, the results should follow the order. "60% of the graduates said their expectations were met, while all participants said local case studies should be developed. 90% of the mentors said mentees' timeliness of responding to tasks was a weakness." Are these results from the FGD or quantitative study?</p><p>"The workshop was productive, and the programme team is confident that Cohort 2 implementation will be smoother and more robust with the lessons learnt. Though residents were exposed to statistical tools such as Epi Info, Excel, and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS..." The conclusion should be more objective, focusing on what the study reported in the result section from where recommendations are made.</p>