Title: Male partners’ involvement in birth preparedness and complication readiness plan in Dale
district, Sidama regional state, Ethiopia, 2021
Version: 3 Date: 22 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
General: The article addresses an important public health issue that is critical for improving
maternal health. However, there are English language problems that hinder proper understanding
of this manuscript. It is crucial to address these issues.
Abstract
# In the objective section, "male participation" and "male involvement" are used
interchangeably. It is recommended to use "male involvement" consistently throughout the
document.
# Result (line 35): There are English language issues that need to be reviewed. For example, in
line 35, there is a capital letter in the middle of the sentence ("Giving birth").
Backgrounds
# The background section needs to be rewritten to justify why this study was conducted. In its
current version, it lacks clarity and consistency. For example, in line 79-83, there is a lack of
clarity in the sentence structure. The manuscript should undergo language editing as such issues
are prevalent throughout.
Method
# Study population: Line 130 mentions "Male partners’ of permanent residents of women." It is
unclear what is meant by "permanent residents" as it has other meanings beyond simply living
for more than six months. It is better to avoid this term and ensure language accuracy throughout
the manuscript. The last sentence in the study population section (133-135) is unnecessary
repetition.
# Data analysis: In line 181-182, the phrase "We then used a backwards elimination procedure,
by removing the least significant variable in the model" requires justification from the author
for using the backward elimination method in the analysis. It is usually recommended to use
the standard ‘enter” method.
# Operational definitions (Line 193): "Good involvement in BP/CR" - The eight parameters of
the birth preparedness and complication readiness plan should be described here.
# Study variable: The study variable description should be placed before the data analysis section
so that readers understand the exposure and outcome variables. Additionally, the inclusion of a
"dissemination of the study" section is not relevant here. The authors should refer to the journal's
submission guidelines and organize the manuscript accordingly.
Result
# The subheading titled "Health seeking behaviour" is available in the manuscript, but the table
title was reported as "Reproductive characteristics." As the subheading does not represent all the
reported reproductive characteristics, this subheading needs to be renamed in such a way that
it represented all ideas written under it.
# Under "Health seeking behaviour": It would be important to report the number of women who
received ANC before describing the proportion of male who accompanied their spouses to ANC.
# Under health service factors, line 252: The statement "A few 107(17.2%) wives walked a
distance of 2 hours and above. Among the study participants, 214(34.4%) explained that they
have no access to transportation. Hence, they have gone to health institutions on foot" requires
clarification. Were those who walked 2 hours and above to reach the health facility included in
the group with no access to transportation? There seems to be an overlap, and this should be
properly reported.
# Under "Knowledge of males about obstetric danger," line 262-264: The authors stated,
"Accordingly, knowledge of study participants about obstetric danger signs were estimated to
be 447(71.9%), 436(70.1%), 423(68.0%) during pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum period,
respectively." Please clarify that you are describing knowledge of obstetric danger signs during
pregnancy, delivery, and the postpartum period.
# Under "Male partner's participants in BPCR," line 274-276: It is mentioned that "…. practiced
at least five from eight components of birth preparedness and complication readiness are
categorized as knowledgeable." Please confirm that you are really using practices to measure
knowledge.
Discussion
# In paragraph 2 of discussion, the author describes, "This finding is less than the findings of the
studies conducted in Wolayta, South Ethiopia (55%) [26], Debre-Berhan, Northeast Ethiopia
(51.4%) [20], Axum, North Ethiopia (64.7%) [20], and Mekelle North Ethiopia (62%) [24]. The
possible rationale for this difference may be explained by the fact that all the study participants in
the current study were rural residents." The authors need to supplement their idea by indicating
low health-seeking behaviour is related with rural residency using appropriate references. In
general, all justification for the discrepancy described in the whole discussion section should
be supported by evidence.
# Under "public health implications," the entire paragraph contains several proofreading issues.
The author should consider using professional language editor to address the language issues
that are prevalent throughout the manuscript.
Conclusion:
# The conclusion should be written in the way it addresses all possible risk factors identified.