Reviewer’s report
Title:  Contraception and Post Abortion Services: Qualitative Analysis  of Users´ Perspectives  and
Experiences following Zika Epidemic in Honduras.
Version: 0 Date: 24 Apr 2020
Reviewer: Mamo Nigatu Gebre
Reviewer's report:
Appropriateness of the study: The authors conducted the study among men and women who were
already utilizing contraceptives and PAC services from two health facilities in Tegucigalpa. It would
have been better had this study had been done in natural setting (had it been community based study) to
better address barriers of contraceptives and PAC services utilization by including those who were not
utilizing the services into the study as barriers of utilization maybe different for services utilizes and
non-utilizes. Title: 'Qualitative stocktaking on assessment of barriers and facilitators to contraceptive
and post-abortion care services use following Zika epidemic in Tegucigalpa, Honduras' The title of the
research is not self-informative for the following reasons 1. As indicated in the title, the aim of this
study seems  assessment  of barriers  and  facilitators  to  contraceptive  and  PAC  services  utilization
following Zika epidemic in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. The title does not indicate that the authors are
going to study participants' Knowledge on contraceptives, participants' attitude towards contraceptives
and participants' knowledge of Zika virus (what Zika virus is, how it is transmitted and how to prevent
it),  but  the  authors  mainly addressed  these  points.  Besides,  there  is  no  single  report  concerning
facilitators of contraceptives and PAC service utilization in the result of the study 2. Population among
which the research was conducted should have been indicated in the title Abstract 1. The conclusions
drawn were not based on the results. For example, the authors concluded that Zika epidemic has
highlighted weaknesses in health systems that obstruct access to and use of sexual and reproductive
health services where this was not supported by their result 2. The authors did not use appropriate
keywords Background Page 4, line number 51-54; as I mentioned under the title, the objectives set here
are not in line with the title of the research and the main reports Method 1. The design of the study is
not clear. There is no study design called 'inductive inquiry'. I did also not understand the phrase
'inductive inquiry'. Induction in research is a type of scientific inference where an investigator infers
findings from individuals or specific population to the general population. 2. Page 5, line number 10-
16; the authors described data collection method under the study design although they have separate
sub-topic for data collection method. 3. Page 5, line 45; the authors should have described the facilities
prior to say "the two facilities…." 4. Page 6, lines 7-13; the authors did not mention the size of research
participants participated in the study and how they decided the number. As it is a qualitative study,
sample size may or may not be decided ahead of data collection, but the authors should have described
about their sample size. The authors also did not mention what type of purposive sampling technique
they used to trace the study participants. They should have explained which type of purposive sampling
technique they utilized and why? 5. Page 6, line 19-26; the authors said that questionnaire were
developed based on the stated objectives, but they did not set those objectives they described there
Results 1. The results report should have been organized as per the set objectives 2. Page 7, lines 38-45;
the authors should have started the results report writing with socio-demographic characteristics of
study participants rather than starting with results dissemination report. Discussion 1. The authors did
not well discuss their finding by comparing with other literature. 2. Page 17, lines 12-18; the authors
compared their results with other finding where Zika virus posed a problem, but in their there is no
results that shows whether presence of Zika virus infection had posed a problem on the quality and
accessibility of PAC services. 3. Besides, the authors did not compare and contrast their findings with
other literature. Implications are also lacking 4. Page 18, lines 26-29; the authors should have written
their own finding rather than describing what was already studied. 5. Page 19, lines 31-35; the author
mentioned the design of the study as a limitation, but in qualitative study representativeness of the
study participants is not a subject of worry (even 3-5 participants are enough if the information being
extracted is redundant); rather, what mater most in qualitative study is exploring the truth/reality. 6.
Page 19, lines 39-44; the authors mentioned that the strength of the study is using large number of
participants. But this is in contrary with what they mentioned as a limitation of their study. Besides, a
calculated sample size is always a minimum sample size as a maximum sample size is up to the size of
source population. 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
No
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  statistical  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 language 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 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 stocks 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 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.
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 with the authors' responses. I agree for my
report  to  be  made  available  under  an  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 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