Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: UNMET NEED FOR FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES AMONG YOUNG MARRIED  
WOMEN (15 -24 YEARS) LIVING IN URBAN SLUMS OF INDIA  
 
Version: 1 Date: 21 Mar 2018  
 
Reviewer: Ranjan Prusty  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Although this paper brings out an important issue of unmet need for family planning among 
young married women in slums of an high fertility state of Uttar Pradesh, this paper needs a 
major language revision and editing in scientific l anguage to be published.  
 
Abstract  
1) "The unmet need for family planning in married women in Uttar Pradesh is 18.1% (urban -
13.4% and rural -19.6%)". Is it the finding of this study? If not, please mention the data you are 
referring here?  
2) The objective do esn't look scientifically connected to the data? Why urban slums in UP?  
3) "2 slums were"… I would request to start the sentence with words.  
4) In methods, the focus should be on statistical techniques used rather than Spss.  
5) In results, the multivariate results can be highlighted.  
6) Language editing is required for the whole abstract. For example, cross sectional study was 
conducted (Not done).  
 
Introduction  
1) There many studies in India and elsewhere highlighting contra ceptive use and unmet need, the 
authors may add few literatures from the slum areas and state how this study is different from 
other study.  
2) Objectives are well defined.  
 
Methods  
3) I am not sure what is the format the journal follows, but the authors  may follow the scientific 
writing style rather than highlighting every aspect with heading. I would request the authors to 
see a sample publication of the journal.  
4) What types of slums were selected "notified / recognizable / identifiable"?  
5) Are "you ng married women (15 -24)" both inclusion and exclusion criteria? There may some 
error here.  
6) In the definition/concept of "Unmet need for limiting", the authors have mentioned "who are 
not using any modern method" which should be not using any modern li miting methods. The 
author/s should clearly define, what are the modern methods that is covered in the study.  
7) Like the dependent variables, the independent variables are also required to be explained for 
international readers. Like, for caste which lis t was used: state/centre list? How socio -economic 
status was calculated? Is it wealth based or income based?  
 
Results  
8) The results are well structured, however, the interpretation of odds ratio are wrong. For 
example, "women of 20 -24 years are 0.36 time s less likely….?" Here, 0.36 is the odds of 20 -24 
years women group with reference to 15 -19 years women group (whose odd is considered as 1). 
So women age 20 -24 are 64% less likely have unmet need in comparison to the reference groups 
and yes nobody writes  0.36 times. My apologies.  
9) The CIs can be added while interpreting the results. For example, The women aged 20 -24 are 
significantly less likely to have unmet need for family planning ( OR: 0.36, CI: XX -XX).  
10) Please explain only the significant and k ey results.  
 
Discussion  
11) The discussion section is well written.  
Reference:  
12) There is inconsistency in referencing. For example, ref no. 16 and 32 are either insufficient 
or not in proper format. This may be corrected.  
13) For global readers, abbreviations like SC/ST should be clearly defined in the foot note of the 
table.  
 
Finally, this manuscript requires language editing from a scientific writer to reduce 
inconsistencies and errors that the manuscript have and bring t his into publishable format.      
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 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 manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
 
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality  of language in the manuscript:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
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 o f 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  
 
I agree to t he open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along wit h the authors'  
responses. 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/ ). 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