Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Determinants of unmet need for family planning among women in Urban Cameroon: A 
cross sectional survey in the Biyem -Assi Health Distri ct, Yaoundé  
 
Version: 0 Date: 13 Nov 2015  
 
Reviewer: Estelle  Sidze  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
The study addresses an important issue. Evidence on factors associated with unmet needs in 
Cameroon is scanty and the study fills the gap. I however have a number of comments that will 
help authors in improving the manuscript.  
 
 
Major  revisions:  
 
Background:  
 
- The writing of the background section needs to be strengthened and English significantly 
edited. The authors give an idea of why the topic is important in general in the 
developing world, but It would be more adequate to focus on  the African context, 
Central/West Africa and Cameroon in particular. Why is the topic important in 
Cameroon? This has to be properly isolated in one or two p aragraphs in the 
argumentation.  
 
- I would suggest to delete lines 72 to 76. They don't add much t o the argumentation and 
confuse the reading  
 
- Delete hypotheses not well formulated) and specific objectives. It would be more 
adequate to write down objectives and research qu estions within the text i tself.  
 
- There is a need to clearly stated what liter ature says about factors associated with unmet 
need in general and Africa in particular and explain why some variables were retained for 
analysis. This is important for the reader to understand why some variables are significant 
and others not in the resu lts section.  
 
 
Materials and Methods:  
 
- What is the rationale of using only women in union? How about unmet need among 
women not married but sexually active? The reason for exclusion/choice should be 
justified  
 
- What is lorentz formula? This is not common i n population studies. Why was it used? 
Also give a rationale of using the formula.  
 
- The section is rather too long with information not necessary in a journal paper (e.g. lines 
145 to 150. Lines 151 to 159 can be written more succinctly. Lines 168 to 179 are not 
really necessary.  
 
- Explain the multi -step approach correctly from the onset of the section i.e. how you 
trickle down from area, cluster, households and finally women.  
 
- How was the issue of correlation at household level addressed if more than on e women 
was selected per household?  
 
- The English writing needs some editing  
 
- I would highly suggest to pick any paper published in BMC Women health and have a 
look on how to present a succinct and clear methods section.  
 
 
Results:  
 
- Non-response rates are  based on refusals among eligible population. Please rectify.  
 
- Replace free union by ``cohabitation`` or ``consensual union `` all across  
 
- Give an estimation of what 50,000 CFA translates into US dollars for a general audience  
 
- Line 233. Is this 75% of women of the sample?This does not match the findings 
displayed in figure 1. More so if the demand satisfied is 76%. I also think based on your 
figures that the demand satisfied cannot be 76%, or is this 76% of a particular sub -group 
of women? The Westoff/D HS method used is indicated, it might be good although to 
explain how each of the statistics displayed in the result section are combined.  
 
- Figure 1: First box at the top: do you mean women who responded to the survey instead 
of women who responded to the  contraceptive use. Please rectify.  
 
- Remove all comments placed under the tables. These are not necessary  
 
 
Results:  
 
- Quite clear and succinct results section. Please edit the English writing. An impersonal 
tone is better appropriate for journal papers than the use of ``we``  
 
 
Discussion:  
- This section is reserved for putting the findings into context. I would suggest t o merge all 
following sections (except the limitations sections) into a succinct and strong discussion  
 
 
Minor revisions:  
 
Abstract: Clarify in the methodology what the methods were uses to test (determine level of 
unmet need, determine associations...)  
 
Are the methods appropriate 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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additiona l 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, fee s, 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.  
 
No competing interest  
 
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 include d 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