Reviewer’s report  
 
Title: Spousal discordance on reports of  contraceptive communication, contraceptive use, and 
ideal family size in rural India: a cross -sectional study  
 
Version: 1 Date: 16 Jul 2018  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: To view the full report from the academic peer reviewer, 
please se e the attached file.  
REVIEWER COMMENTS FROM REPORT: This is a well -conceived study targeted at 
managing fertility rate in India. Undoubtedly, couples need to agree to manage their reproductive 
lives. The study is therefore of relevance. The authors put th e study in context, stated the 
objectives clearly, used relevant analysis techniques and interpreted the findings.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
The authors should review the interpretation of the multinomial models. Some interpretations 
were not correct. The con clusion of the study is very inappropriate. Conclusions should be tied to 
study objectives.  
Specific suggestions for revisions are as follows. On page 12, line 48 should have been Over half 
of the women...... Delete a little  
In page 13 line 46, it is no t sufficient to say that several variables are significant.  The authors 
should state the variables and the magnitude of significance.  
That is, the AORs should be re -expressed in a way that a layman will understand. Eg AOR=2.17 
means that, while controlli ng for other variables, women reporting equality....... were over twice 
(117%) as likely than......  
They should focus on the need for communication and improved concordance, rather than the 
advantages of including both spouses in studies  
 
Minor typos should also be corrected  
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
Abbreviations  should be fully stated at first use. The list of abbreviations  at the end of the 
manuscript should be updated  
Are the methods appropriat e 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 the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional s tatistical review is recommended, please specify 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 language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some langu age corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from a n 
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 stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of th is 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 competing 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Rese arch Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was pai d a small honorarium for completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
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 with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY l icense ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review  policy of the journal