Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Women's experiences seeking informal sec tor abortion services in Cape Town, South 
Africa: a descriptive study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 22 Aug 2016 
 
Reviewer:  Kirsten  Black  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
This is potentially interesting article but the key points are lost because the message is not 
consistent. I think it requires greater clarity about what the central research questions an d 
findings are. In the abstract for example the stated aims are to "better understand women's 
experiences and accurately measure the incidence and characteristics of informal sector 
abortions" The results in the abstract focus on the types of informal abor tion and the sources of 
information. The conclusion is about the sampling method.  
 
The results are too lengthy and some of the data should be only in tables and not described as 
well. I am not sure current contraceptive use is relevant.  
 
In the discussion t he factors motivating women to seek informal abortion are not well discussed 
and there is generally a lack of depth to the section. for example is the mistrust and fear of 
stigmatization of formal abortion services possibly related to the fact that many of  the women 
were sex workers? The conclusion in the body of the manuscript is more aligned with what I 
believe are the important findings but this is very different to the abstract.  
 
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 comm ents to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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.  
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indi cate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 m ay 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, fund ing, 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.  
 
NIL 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journ al. 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 m y 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