Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Multilevel analysis of the role of women’s empowerment on use of
contraceptive methods among married Cambodian women: evidence from
demographic health surveys between 2005 and 2014
Version: 
0 
Date: 
08 Sep 2020
Reviewer's report:
BMWH-D-20-00281
Multilevel analysis of the role of women's empowerment on use of contraceptive
methods among married Cambodian women: evidence from demographic health
surveys between 2005 and 2014
Version 8th September 2020
Reviewers report 
The manuscript uses Multilevel binary and multinomial logistic regression
models to assess the association individual- and community- level factors and
use of contraceptive methods. It is interesting to learn of the different variables
that contributed to increased contraceptive use among Cambodian women. The
authors used methodological rigor in the data analysis to provide evidence to the
contraceptive use in the country. 
Major Compulsory Revisions:
Abstract: 
In the background, there are typos which need to be revised to have the readers
understand what you are referring to. For instance you mention there are limited
studies that examine, change to 
read "..have examined".
Results: the authors mention the increased likelihood of using traditional
methods, just wondering if we should be promoting the use of traditional
methods versus the effective modern contraceptive methods? Would be good to
show the multinomial and binary logistic results beyond the descriptive statistics
(contraceptive prevalence) presented. 
Conclusion: Please focus your concluding remarks to the relate to the main
purpose of your study that you set out to examine. 
Key words, perhaps it would be good to add the DHS. 
Main manuscript 
Background
The first sentence please make reference to other publications that have
confirmed that notion too. When you refer to only one publication it seems those
are the only scholars who have proven that. 
While you accessed the reference (4)
in 2020, it shows that it was published on line in 1995, could there be other
recent publications that could provide updated statistics for the same comment
line in 15-17 page 4? 
Line 22-27 does not read well, please revise to provide a good background. So
are there other publications that have emphasized the need to push this agenda
for "safe Motherhood" beyond the one published in 1996 (6)? You may have to
explore other publications since then. 
Line 33-37, page 4 you make a pertinent submission please provide evidence to
this sentence. 
Generally the background, provide explicit reference grounding to the contextual
issues that you propose to analyse. When you mention that there are limited
studies Page 5, Line 10-30 is it possible to list the few that you are referring to?
Are the few limited to Cambodia or generally?
Methods
Good to know the source and the the brief on the data collection processes with
regard stratification. Why did you choose to use the ever married women? Why
not use currently married? How was this question asked in the questionnaire?
Otherwise as it reads, one could have been "ever married" but at the time of the
survey reports to have separated or widowed or otherwise. 
The outcome variable, why did you chose to combine modern and traditional
methods? what is the failure rate related to unplanned pregnancy especially
among those using the traditional methods? Are they effective methods that
would be promoted improve reproductive health outcomes? 
Page 7, line 50-59, did you generate this composite measure for wealth index or
adopted the classification (variable) as published in the dataset? Page 7 line 59
and page 8, line 4-7 seems misplaced. Does it also relate to the wealth index
score? 
Data analysis, while you mention weighted frequencies, it would be good to
know how you carried out the weighting of the variables. Page 8, line 37 to page
9 line 9 is well written, I like the detailed analysis plan, the random effects
reporting and the goodness of fit check. 
Results, page 10, line 4-7, you mention majority with only (40.2%, and 42.1%,
respectively) and high proportion of (39.0%), revise these sentence. 
Would the
reader miss much if the analysis was limited to modern contraceptive use? You
mentioned the AIC, perhaps it would be good to mentioned that the results
presented are based on the model goodness of fit checks done. 
Discussion
Page 14 line 47-50, would be good to know some of the highlighted programs
that could have contributed to the increase in the country. 
Page 16, line 7-26, and
the general discussion section, you need to contextualise what is submitted in
some of the sentences written. in the conclusion section, tt is not clear if the
authors are drawing their conclusions based on modern or traditional methods of
contraception. 
References,
The formatting of all the references should be consistent with the journal
guidelines for instance, reference 11 looks incomplete. 
While there is evidence
that you accessed some of the online references in 2020, just curious to know if
one could see more recent publications say of WHO compared reference 2, 4 and
6. 
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registered at
Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons, you
will receive an email from them asking you to register in order for them to be
able to recognize your review on your new profile page. Publons may use the
Review Data to generate derivative metadata for the benefit of Publons and you
as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity of such information. For
example, Publons may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile
published on its webservice if you have registered for such service or help
editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing in
Publons’ privacy policy 
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
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, fees, 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.
I declare not competing interests.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial
office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note
you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and
confirm this decision whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we
will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my
report.
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes