Title: Knowledge and Use of Emergency Contraceptive Methods and Associated Factors among
Female Youth College Students in Gondar City, Northwest Ethiopia, 2023
Version: 0 Date: 13 Mar 2024
Reviewer:  Chilot Kassa Mekonnen
Reviewer's report:
To: Journal of BMC Women’s Health
Reviewer’s comments
I have gone through your manuscript and forwarded the comments herewith
Abstract
1. No need of abbreviation in the abstract section such as “EC” just write the long form only
2. Introduction Page 2, lines 20-24 the way of writing this section needs great attention but it
is not kind of an abstract introduction it is just copy paste of the introduction section. It would
rather writing as summary of something with synthesized ideas, please rewrite it again. It should
explain why you did this systematic review and meta-analysis study in short and precise.
3. Method Page 2, lines 26-27. Institution based cross sectional study was employed among 814
female college students in Gondar city from April 15 to 28 2023.  The time of data collection is
short, how you could do it within 13 days???? How many per day??
4. Method page 2, lines; 27-29 why you used multi-stage stratified random sampling technique?
Statistical significance was defined at a p-value < 0.05  what about variables having p-values
# 0.05 ???
5. Conclusion page 2, lines 43-47, the author better rewrite this section again. “Knowledge
and utilization of EC among female college students were low why you declared low?? What
is your parameter to say low or high? Your significant predictors and recommendations did
not go hand in hand  please see “Religion, year of study and marital status were associated
with knowledge; monthly allowance, considering using EC as a sin, knowledge towards EC,
and RH issues discussion with partners/husbands were associated with utilization of EC. It is
better to enhance youth knowledge and utilization regarding EC, through school based education
programs.” The recommendations are driven out of the pocket, but must be result oriented. So
please rewrite the whole conclusion  section
Introduction
6. Pages 4-5, lines 50-91, better written in the way that definition of the variable understudy,
magnitude, possible solutions implemented previously, and finally the aim or implication of the
current study. The way of organizing your introduction is not attractive so please revise it.
7. Page 4, lines; 59-60, Please write the long form first “IUCDs” could not be understandable
for new reader.
Method,
8. Page 6, lines 92-101, Study area and method “Gondar city is located in the central Gondar
zone, which is 720 km away from Addis Ababa (the capital city of Ethiopia) and 180 km from
Bahir Dar (the capital of the regional state). Based on the 2007/2015 national census conducted
by the Central Statistical Agency (CSA), Gondar had a total population of 207,044; of those
102,487 were men. Gondar city has eight public health centers, 14 health posts, 32 private clinics,
and one referral hospital, and the city has six private and three public colleges total of 8528
female students were available in all colleges in Gondar city (42)” “ Please revise it. You ought
to give the right number of private colleges and public colleges and make sure that which type
of college was your target? Health or Others??? On top of this do you think the type of college
has an impact on EC utilization and knowledge, I guess there will be????/
9. Method section, page 6, lines 108-114, the inclusion and exclusion is ill defined this is my
concern how you were assured the result.
10. Why you used design effect “2”??
11. Page 9, Data collection procedures and Materials was your tool valid? How would you assure
validity???
12. Page 9, lines 167-171, “This section is confusing “ In addition Pretest was conducted among
41 (5% sample size) of female college students in Lay Armachiho prior to the actual data
collection period to identify the misunderstood items and necessary corrections was made.”
What specific modifications you did please state it
13. Result section well written except grammatical errors
Discussion:
14. Pages 15-18, lines, 275-35, the author wrote unnecessary details  with poor justification so
please take time on your discussion section and be specific enough to justify but don’t make it
crude for the reader of your work. Grammar is also a huge limitation of this particular manuscript,
please read again and again to revise it
15. Page 18, lines 353-357, strength and limitation is not appropriate I thought that this is not
the strength and limitation of your study “This study was a community based study and assessed
different factors for knowledge and attitude among female youth students. Which provides
updated information? However the data were collected only from female students in colleges.
Thus, the result from the current study may not be generalized to all youth in the study area.
Self-reported information is subjected to reporting errors.” Think over it and rewrite it
16. Page 15, line 356-366 conclusion to crude and non-sense “Even if our finding shows
knowledge of female youth shown some improvement compared to some previous studies it is
still low. More over the EC utilization among female college students was low. Muslim religion,
year of study (3rd and 4th) and being single in marital were associated with knowledge of the
students about EC. While having monthly allowance of 1500 and above, those who reported
using EC as a sin, knowledge towards EC, and those students who didn’t discuss RH issues
with their partners/husbands were associated with utilization of EC. Based on our findings, it is
better to establish and/or strengthen school based health education & promotion programs and
opportunities to increase female students’ level of knowledge about EC.” Please rewrite it.
Conclusion: Major revision