Reviewer's report 
 Knowledge and use of emergency contraception among women in the Western Cape province of Title: 
South Africa: A cross-sectional study 
 3  14 June 2007 Version: Date: 
 Douglas Ball Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have done a good job revising the submission. It is much clearer and focused. I still require a 
few minor changes prior to accepting it for publication. I have classed two of these as ‘major’ but this is 
somewhat a misnomer – but I feel strongly that they must be attended to. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
Results 
The continued focus on independent significant findings without recognition that some are not significant 
following the multivariate logistic regression is inappropriate methodologically. AT THE LEAST, a statement 
needs to be added in the results to mention that certain observed significant associations (age, whether last 
pregnancy was unintended, last method of contraception) disappear after controlling for the other factors 
due to the heterogeneous nature of the sample. A more balanced presentation of both sets of results would 
be preferred. [The alternative is to remove all reference to the logistic regression but this would be a 
backward step] 
Table 4. 
Provide a list of all other variables included in the model as a footnote to the table stating that they were non-significant. It is not adequate to expect these to be inferred from another table – it is important to be clear. Also provide the R2 (R-squared) value for the model (here or in the text). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
Abstract 
26 clinics, not 30. 
Results 
P4, line 3 – ‘equivalent’ 
Discussion 
P8 – I agree that generalizing one can say that EC awareness is lower in SA than in UK, USA. But I do not 
believe that a generalization is appropriate, especially given the variation seen in the results among various 
subpopulations. Among more educated women in this survey, awareness is probably similar to Western 
countries (excuse the generalization), while for others it is much lower. Low awareness has been reported 
in socially disadvantaged/uneducated women in France (Moreau et al. Contraception 2005; 71:202) and 
San Francisco (Jackson et al. Contraception 2000; 61: 351). A recognition of this variation (weighted towards greater proportions of unaware women in SA because of the higher levels of those socially 
disadvantaged, etc. is what was being requested. I can accept that the authors might not wish to go into this 
and I would be satisfied if the word “overall’ (or similar) is used to start the second sentence of the 
discussion to recognize the generalization. 
P10, first sentence ‘clinics’ 
P10, second sentence delete ‘and’ 
P10, second paragraph, last sentence – this is not a limitation of this study. 
References 
The authors have not attended to the references as directed in the first review. #3, 10, 13, 14, 15 are given in a different format #5 is in the incorrect order 
#16, 20, 21 journal name is not abbreviated 
#1, 12, 17, 21 only provide names of first 3 authors (while others give all names) Need to be consistent. 
Table 1. 
Clarify what the numbers in parentheses represent (% in column heading?) Change ‘Median grade’ to Median level of schooling (grade) for greater clarity/understanding by international readers. 
Total for age is 26 out of 831. Is this correct? 
Table 3. 
Move the % symbol to the appropriate columns as in table 2. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests