Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Quality of care in family planning services in rural Mozambique with a focus on Long 
Acting Reversible Contraceptives: a cross -sectional survey  
 
Version: 2 Date: 05 Apr 2018  
 
Reviewer: Blair Grant Darney  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Thank you for your comprehe nsive response to reviewers and your considerable work to 
improve the manuscript.  
 
 
In my original review, I included this (with author response below):  
 
 
Line 167 -171: you are powered to detect dissatisfaction - which is very rare. Is this the primary 
outcome? This needs to be made clear in the abstract and study objective sections. Why did you 
choose dissatisfaction as the primary outcome, given all the pr oblems with satisfaction measures 
in previous work? This is a major question I have about this paper.  
 
 
We used several indicators to measure quality of care (1) discussed, preferred and received 
methods, 2) received information on usage and side -effects, 3 ) client provider interaction, 4) 
informed about the need for follow up, 5) general health examinations conducted and travel 
time).  
 
 
Satisfaction is studied most to assess quality of care with FP services, therefore this outcome was 
used to calculate sampl e size. We didn't anticipate such a problem with satisfaction when we 
calculated the sample size. We included this as a limitation of our study (line 448):  
 
 
This is a major limitation. Also, for me, the Introduction is still too long, and the outcomes and 
hypotheses confused. The Principal components analysis does not make a lot of sense for me.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately 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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional  statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a dec laration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manusc ript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 comp eting interests' 
below. If you r reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepte d 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 an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.or g/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editor s, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal