Title: Level of women-friendly care provision among mothers in immediate post-partum period
at public hospitals of Southeast Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study  
Version: 4 Date: 19 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
First, thanks for allowing me to review the manuscript entailed “Level of women-friendly care
provision among mothers in immediate post-delivery period at public hospitals of Southeast
Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study.” I honestly consider it a good piece of research, may benefit
from some adjustment, and can be published.
Abstract
# The abstract is too long and contains too much material, particularly in the introduction section.
# please minimize number of abbreviations in the abstract. It is not recommended at all.
Background
# This section should be revised for clarity throughout, with a strong emphasis on the level of
women-friendly care.
# References are sparse and the writing lacks cohesion. the authors are mentioned a lot of
unnecessary information in this section. For me, the first line of the section should tell us much
about “Level of women-friendly care” and its type. Information of little value is included, such
as when the authors announce some of the human rights. In addition, there is a general lack of
bibliographical references to powerful women-friendly care studies.
# What is the situation regarding the Level of women-friendly care, RMC in Ethiopia, Africa as
well as worldwide???  including obstetrical violence
# The author attempted to demonstrate the research gap and the reason for conducting the study.
But, if the level of women-friendly care in the area is well known, what is the point of conducting
this study????
# The final paragraph of the background should justify why you want to do this research, which
includes the rationale for the study, what research gaps you identified, and convincing readers
that this research is novel if it is.
METHODS
# There were several places where the subtitle does not make sense.
# give a detail information about Sampling procedure and technique
# There are important questions regarding the interviews:
# What specific aspects were all participants asked about in the structured interview; How
many questions did it include; Were all responses in a Yes/No format; Was level of women-
friendly care provision asked as it appears in Table 4; if yes, there are many questions doesn’t
get sufficient answer just by using a Yes/No format questions. even some of the subthemes of
the tools need a detail of in-depth interview to get sufficient information to measure level of
women-friendly care provision!!!  The author should justify it!!! At what point in the perinatal
stage was it administered; Did the researchers ensure that the women participants understood
what level of women-friendly care provision is before interviewing them?
# The author indicates that modification and corrections were made after the pre-test. Please
provide the reader with information what these entailed.
# Data collection tool was a structured questionnaire – provide the reader with a short summary
of the content of the questionnaire.
# The data collection requires more information – how were women approached to participate
in the study? How much time did the interviews require?
# What ethical considerations were undertaken to protect the respondents’ privacy, anonymity
and autonomy?
RESULT
# Mention the key findings of your analytic study! Table 4 results, in particular. What kind of
level of women-friendly care is commonly reported?
# Some of the factors (variables highlighted in table 4) require data collection by observation
rather than interview because this factor involves patient-provider interaction, which is best
assessed through observation rather than interview. Could you please explain?
DISCUSSION
# The main issue to be addressed in this section of the manuscript is comparing and contrasting
with the existing literature. However, this section is presently lacking and reads more like a
comparison of the study's findings with other publications supported by scientific evidence for
justification.
# What can the health-care authorities do for improving their practice towards cervical cancer
screening in special areas like Africa including Ethiopia? Please discuss it in manuscript.
# What is the clinical implication of the findings obtained from the present study? Please add
this to discussion.
# I think the clinical implications are one of the most important elements to discuss
when analyzing the topics. Please consider focusing on that instead of throwing general
recommendations.
# The author mentioned the following sentence on P12, L 267-272 “Evidence reports that
disrespect and abuse of women during maternity care are problems that have been masked by a
veil of silence and they can expressively impact women’s readiness to seek life-saving maternity
care (4). According to this study, of the total participants (18.1%) were disrespected during
facility-based childbirth. This finding was lower than studies conducted in Egypt (22), Bahir
Dar (12), and Arba Minch, Ethiopia (13). The difference may be due to differences in health
policy regarding maternity care across the countries “
#  In the preceding paragraph, I did not see any findings on disrespect and abuse in the
manuscript's result section. Where did the author get the information? Why does the author want
to talk about disrespect and abuse?
Conclusions and recommendation
# This section should be simplified, and the conclusions and recommendations should be more
closely tied to the data.
# What recommendations are based on the findings, and how might this affect maternal health
equity?
Minor comments
# There should be a space between the last word and the brackets containing the references cited.
#  It is preferable to use the same font style and size throughout.