Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: A qualitative exploration of perceptions and experiences  of contraceptive use, abortion 
and Post-Abortion Fam ily Planning services (PAFP) in China  
 
Version: 0 Date: 06 Dec 2016  
 
Reviewer: Sam Rowlands  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This paper will I think interest readers. It gives a good insight into how women and their partners 
perceive delivery of pos tabortion contraception in China.  
 
 
The methodology is I believe satisfactory.  
 
 
I would like the authors to give a bit more context about contraception in China in the 
Background.It is noteworthy that the overall contraceptive prevalence (all methods) is over  80% 
and higher than in countries like the UK and USA. Prevalence of use of intrauterine 
contraception is one of the highest in the world at nearly 40%. In contrast oral contraceptive 
prevalence is very low at 1%. The authors should comment on the possible  contribution of 
general public unease with OCs, policies discouraging OC use or provider bias against the 
method.  
 
 
I have not seen any studies of an association between abortion and retained placenta; I have seen 
one study on placental abruption which sho wed no association. Regarding placenta previa the 
evidence is inconsistent with one high quality study showing no association.  
 
 
Also in the Background (page 4,line 37) references 8 and 9 should be replaced with more 
appropriate ones. Three prospective stud ies (WHO Task Force 1984, MacKenzie & Fry 1988 
and Frank et al 1993 all show normal fertility after abortion.  
 
 
The authors must be careful not to stigmatise women who have had abortions. They refer to 
repeat/repeated abortions on pages 5, 6, 17 and 18. Thes e terms should be replaced with non -
judgemental terms such as subsequent, further etc.  
 
 
In the Discussion (page 23, line 47) the misperception that long -acting reversible contraception is 
not appropriate for nulliparous women is not new. The authors should refer to previous work on 
this subject such as that by Spies et al 2010, Sundstrom et al 2015 and Garrett et al 2015.  
Later in the Discussion, the authors should cite others who have noted the widespread concerns 
about side effects of contraceptives including Coombe et al 2016.  
 
 
At the top of page 26 the authors refer to targeting male partners; they could consider deletin g 
the word 'target' and leave the sentence as just involving male partners so that this is seen as a bit 
less aggressive.  
 
 
Finally in Table 1 use of the term 'peasant' could be considered pejorative by some in view of its 
informal use; maybe this could be b etter expressed as smallholder/labourer or suchlike.  
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to t he authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additi onal statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of l anguage in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
 
 
 
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the follow ing questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any s tocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial compe ting interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to  the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along w ith the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under a n Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report c an be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal