Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Respectful focused antenatal care and associated factors among pregnant
women who visit Shashemene town public hospitals, Oromia region, Ethiopia: A
cross-sectional study
Version: 
0 
Date: 
04 Mar 2020
Reviewer: 
Choolwe Jacobs
Reviewer's report:
Comments 
This study reports findings on respectful focused antenatal care and associated
factors among pregnant women who visit some public hospitals in Shashemene
town of Oromia region, in Ethiopia. Using an Institution based cross-sectional
study design, the authors interviewed 422 women and found that 37% of the
respondents experienced respectful focused antenatal care which was predicted
by level of 
education, family monthly income, having unplanned pregnancy and
being multigravida. 
Generally this study presents important findings particularly to the improvement
of maternal and child health survival. However, the paper has a number of gaps
and inadequacies, particularly in the methods and discussion sections. The
manuscript is of low quality as it does not provide adequate and robust
description of the methods including source of data and recruitment of
participants. 
Specifically; 
1. The second line in the abstract distracts the logic in flow of ideas, I would
suggest the authors delete this.
2. The flow of ideas in the introduction section is also not logical. The authors
should have considered beginning this story with the burden of the underlying
problem which is in paragraph two of the introduction
3. In the third paragraph of introduction, the authors claim that there is no study
that has been done around this area. This can only be confirmed by a systematic
or scoping review. Therefore, I suggest this sentence is revised.
4. In the methods section: Although the methodology is relevant, there is no
adequate detail of some important information. This would be difficult for others
to replicate. 
5. The methods section does not provide information about when the interviews
were conducted and by whom?
6. It is also not clear the basis for selecting the two study areas. The authors
should justify why the two facilities and how they arrived on the two that were
selected.
7. More detail is needed on how the participants where sampled. What was the
sampling frame, how were women identified and recruited?
8. How was data collected? The authors have not explicitly indicated this process
of data collection including the tools used.
9. The methods section should concisely but clearly define all variables used,
with reference to how questions were asked on the questionnaire.
10. The variables that were considered in this study are not stated. The authors
should state and define the outcome variable and how it was determined
11. What tool was used to measure respectful care…this should be well stated.
12. On the results section, what do the authors mean when they say …. A total of
420 women were participated. There is need to edit this document and attend to
all grammatical errors. 
13. On Table 1 and 2, the authors do not provide the denominator for the
frequencies and yet this is important and useful for the readership to related the
findings
14. I found the discussion not adequately synthesised. The implications of the
study not elaborated. 
The discussion should not only synthesis the findings and how they add to what
is already known - rather there is also need to relate to what is novel about your
findings 
15. The authors have not commented on any limitations of the study. Is it
possible that this study had no limitations?
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.
Unable to assess
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 additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects
require further assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
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