Reviewer’s report
Title: 
UNDERSTANDING FAMILY PLANNING DECISION-MAKING:
PERSPECTIVES OF PROVIDERS AND COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS
FROM ISTANBUL, TURKEY
Version: 
1 
Date: 
05 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
This article is organized and well written. However, some minor changes are
required to further strengthen this article. 
Introduction 
The introduction section is fine. However, I would suggest adding some
facts/data related to FAMILY PLANNING DECISION-MAKING in Turkey. 
Methodology
Analysis
The authors referred reference#11 for analyzing qualitative data through
inductive, thematic analysis. It would be great if they will explain a bit more
about how they use inductive methods for analyzing qualitative data or
identifying themes and sub-themes of the study. 
The authors referred "Open-coded all text". I would suggest mentioning how
authors did open-coded all texts. 
How authors identified themes and sub-themes in this study? 
Next, we generated a final codebook, which included 51 sub-codes in six main
coding groups, including demographics, family planning, abortion, socially-
oriented perspectives, quality of services, and family planning programs.
How six main coding groups (demographics, family planning, abortion, socially-
oriented perspectives, quality of services, and family planning programs) were
identified by authors? It would add value for readers if authors mention the
criteria for identifying coding groups in the analysis part.
Results:
Table 03
The authors defined some concepts i.e. decision making process, role of male
partners and role of religious beliefs in table three. The authors defied these
concepts on the basis of their own findings or observation or took from any other
studies. If they did not define by themselves, then I would suggest citing these
definitions. 
The third theme "Role of religious belief" is only referring "using modern
contraceptive methods is sin". All quotes from the interviews are reporting it.
Could authors have some quotes apart from the sin related to religious belief
section?
Discussion and conclusions are fine and aligned with study findings.
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 after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. 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
Yes
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.
Nil
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 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
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