Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Socioeconomic inequality in barriers for accessing health cares among
married reproductive aged women in sub-Saharan African countries: A
decomposition Analysis
Version: 
1 
Date: 
26 Feb 2022
Reviewer: 
Sitota Tsegaye
Reviewer's report:
* This is a very interesting paper which will contribute a lot for the society and
scientific community. Below are some issues to give focus and prioritize in the
paper on the next submission.
When you say health care it is not mentioned in the whole document whether it
is maternal care, reproductive or all types of health care in general. It is good to
make it clear.
* The authors should describe more why they prefer to use erreygers normalized
concentration index in the method section.
* The authors should check the grammar of the entire document. There are some
sentences which is not clear for the reader like on the background section: line
11 "Globally, it
becomes on of key challenges for public health (2) ".
* On the background section line 37 "countries in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)
which contains 19 countries from 20". There are more than 20 countries in the
sub-Saharan region. what do you want to specify when you mention the 20
countries?
* You mentioned there are no studies in sub-Saharan countries but there are
plenty studies done in your area. You should search more.
* What was the survey year for Cameroon? It is mentioned properly on the table.
* The below mentioned sentence on the measurement of variable section is not
clear. It is good to describe it more.
"The socioeconomic-related inequality of barriers for accessing health care can
be expressed as the covariance between barriers for accessing health care and the
measurement for living standards distribution (wealth index)."
* On the result section under sub section Decomposing the socioeconomic
related inequality in barriers for accessing health care, the description is more of
data analysis. It is good to separate the method section and result part. 
* On the result You mentioned that "71.89% of women having barriers for
accessing health care had formal education (Table 2)." 
This is against your
discussion and there is no interpretation on the paper for this.
* The authors should write their recommendation in a more specific way on the
conclusion part.
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
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 have no competing interests.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my
report.
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes