Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Inadequate birth spacing is perceived as riskier than all family planning methods, except  
sterilization and abortion, in a qualitative study among urban Nigerians  
 
Version: 0 Date: 10 Apr 2017  
 
Reviewer: John Cleland  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
It was a great idea to compare the health risks of reproductive and contraceptive items and your 
paper was a pleasure to read. It is very short on quotations and the paper might be further 
strengthened if you explored birth spacing in greater depth eg was curtailment of breastfeeding 
explicitly mentioned or sperm poisoning breast milk? what ideas were expressed on the desirable 
length of interval?  
 
 
On abortion it would be int eresting to know if explicit mention was made of medical as opposed 
to surgical abortion in terms of relative health risk  
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and wel l 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 comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequa tely supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommende d, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate 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 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 f or 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 have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the a uthors 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 my report to be made available under a n 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