Reviewer’s report
Title: 
UNDERSTANDING FAMILY PLANNING DECISION-MAKING:
PERSPECTIVES OF PROVIDERS AND COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS
FROM ISTANBUL, TURKEY
Version: 
1 
Date: 
22 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
BACKGROUND
-Some of the references cited appear in the middle of sentences unnecessarily. It
would be less distracting for readers if the authors moved these to the ends of
sentences. This goes for the entire manuscript, actually (would suggest moving
references to the end of sentences). 
-In what ways exactly would Turkish men like to be more involved in family
planning, according to previous research? Do they want more contraceptive
method development aimed at men? Etc.
-The abbreviations in this section don't seem to line up with the descriptions—
I'm assuming because of the language translation? If this is the case, it might be
helpful to have the original Turkish represented in the "abbreviations" section as
well so the acronyms make more sense. 
-I was wondering about sex education in Turkey. Is information about
contraception and family planning taught in schools? Where do people get their
information? Is there any other way to gauge how widespread family planning
knowledge is in the country, maybe compared to other countries nearby? (maybe
other research that has explored knowledge and information among Turkish
people compared to family planning knowledge in other countries?)
-Who are the "community stakeholders"? Can you give us a preview of who
these people are in the front end of the paper? (for example, are they teachers?
Public health researchers? Activists? Etc.) I know this is in the methods but it
would be useful to name one or two examples here as well.
-It would be useful to have some preview of the findings in this section. Also, do
the authors have a hypothesis, or is this study more exploratory (unsure what
they will find due to lack of previous research on this topic)?
METHODS
-How many people did the field company reach out to (or, what was the response
rate for interviews)? How was the study pitched to potential participants—was
the script for medical and non-medical personnel (community stakeholders) the
same?
-I noticed there is a "health facility assessment" mentioned, but it is almost in
passing. Can you say more about what this was? Was this a survey, etc.? Was
there a plan to do qualitative interviews all along, or did the idea for the
interviews profiled here emerge from the assessment?
RESULTS
-The sentence that starts with, "In our study, three main themes emerged from
the transcripts…" is a useful one. Some variation of this would be good to have
at the end of the background section (before the methods) so the reader knows
what to expect from the paper.
-The first section of the results is interesting, but why is it important? It would
help to have a few sentences at the end of this section summing up this theme for
the reader and what it tells us.
I think this would also be helpful in the second section. 
-Regarding the third section, what is the dominant religion/religions in Turkey
and do religious leaders take a clear stance on contraception? Does the religious
environment impact access to information (such as sex education in schools)? It
would be good to have this information for an international audience, perhaps in
the discussion or—depending on the authors' preference—in the background.
DISCUSSION
-Starting with the limitations here might undermine the research to an extent. I
think it is better to start with what this research contributes and save the
limitations for later on in this section.
-The authors state here that "traditional methods were preferred over modern
methods, and most respondents explained that women prefer traditional methods
mostly due to the absence of side effects and ease of use." However, the authors
communicate that there may be religious reasons (section 3 of the findings), in
addition to gendered reasons, why "traditional" methods are preferred. Can the
authors comment on this more directly? They talk more about this later on, but it
would be useful to have a sentence or two here since I'm left wondering about it
as a reader.
- Also related to the religious theme, the authors state, "Respondents thought
that, women paid a lot of importance to religious beliefs theoretically, but
religious beliefs were not a direct influence on the family planning decision-
making process. Interestingly, even women believed that contraception could be
against the will of God; they do not stop using them." I don't know if the authors
provide strong enough evidence that this is the case. Perhaps including a few
more quotes in section 3 (which seems shorter compared to the first two
sections) would help support this point (especially since religion is brought up as
an important theme in the conclusion) 
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
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.
No conflict of interest.
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?
No
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?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes