Title: Unmet Need for Long Acting and Permanent Contraceptives and Associated Factors
among Married Women in Southern Ethiopia
Version: 4 Date: 29 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
Review report manuscript title:
Unmet Need for Long-Acting and Permanent Contraceptives and Associated Factors among
Married Women in Southern Ethiopia
General comment
• The manuscript needs copy editing by a native English speaker
• Consistent citation at the end of each main concept
Specific comments
• Abstract, conclusion part all the factors affecting found out were not listed in the conclusion
part as factors affecting. And, where you bring the variable ‘encouraging male involvement’
not found in the result part. The conclusion should be based on the finding on the general fact.
Therefore, correct this accordingly.
• Sampling technique: should be very brief, it is not clear how you used systematic sampling
method, is that to select households/study units or houses, and you used simple random sampling
in the household where two married women are found, why? Since you have sampling frame/
list of married women’s, why not you continue to use systematic, you need to briefly write/clear
this part. Unless, it shows as it has sampling bias, thus not representative.
• Data collection technique: your questionaries’ is not validated. What was done all to ensure
reliability.  And show how the validity of your research tool is considered.
• Result part: it is bulky, try to summarize, focus to pertinent information’s for narration. Too
much table (reduce number of tables), for example you can merge table 1&2,  4&5 together and
focus to pertinent variables and try to present in smart way.
• I found contradicting concept: on how knowledge was measured, on operational definition
part(page 7 line 205 to 206) it looks the questions are organized as correct/wrong response
questions while on result part (page 13, line no 290-291) looks as knowledge measuring
questions are arranged as likert scale questions, which is contradicting with your plan and
unlikely. Therefore, you have to correct this if it is writing issue.
• Association: which comes first causal effect relationship, according to your research. The
independent variables should be associated with the dependent variable. You research has many
writing issues. Revise very well also.  For example, on page 16, line no 308 and 309, you wrote
as LAPMs of contraception was associated significantly with age at birth, instead you should
write, age is statistically significantly associated with LAPMs. Correct all the writing as shown.
• Association was not run based on your plan, your plan was to check those variables significant
at P < 0.25 under bivariate in multivariate regression, but you actually checked all variables.
• Conclusion should be interpretation form of the main finding, not to be directly written.
• References should be consistently written based on the format of the journal. Example see
reference no. 30, 18, 11, 10, 2 are wrongly written, need to be corrected.
Questions
• Why you used design effect in sample calculation? Why the design effect you used is 2?
• Why you selected the three kebeles randomly, which seems to be purposive on some criteria?
• What is the difference between validity and reliability, what are their importance, brief in short
note.
• Who translated the questionaries’ to local language and back to English, this indicator for
reliability? Brief this in your manuscript.
• About the ethical issue, how was consent taken for women whose age is less than 18?
• Why your response rate 90%, 10% refuse to respond raises question on your approach of data
collection which result in bias, raise question on findings
• How did you dichotomised your outcome variable, brief with short note, Some the confidence
intervals are high, what it shows on your data?
• Which is your reference variable under multivariate logistic regression analysis?