Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Modern contraceptive methods knowledge and practice among blind and deaf women in 
Ethiopia. A cross -sectional survey  
 
Version: 0 Date: 26 Apr 2019  
 
Reviewer: Rhoune Ochako  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a wel l researched paper whose quality can improve with a few corrections. My specific 
comments are as follows:  
 
Background  
-The background section is well written can can be improved with a few corrections on the 
grammar, particularly the objectives which do no t currently read so well  
-What is WWDs?  
 
Methodology  
-What informed the choice of Addis Ababa for the study?  
-Usually people who live in cities are self selecting, most of the time with higher levels of 
education among other characteristics as they move to  the city to look for employment. This 
therefore leads to my question, was Addis Ababa then the best location for this study?  
-Its not clear if PWDs were interviewed from all the 10 sub cities  
-Under data analysis the authors report that corrections for mi ssing data was made. How does 
this alter the quality of data given that data collection had ended?  
-While the authors report that face to face interviews was used, it is not clear as to who collected 
the data  
-Was consent obtained from PWD before data coll ection?  
-Given that the study was done among participants who are under 18, how was consenting 
handled for them  
-It is not clear whether the study received ethical approval  
-The authors shpuld describe how the outcome variable is measured under methodology  
-Marriage before age 18 is better described child marriage as opposed to early marriage  
-Why is the study limited to women? don't men also need SRH services?  
 
Results  
-The authors define illiterate as not having attended school, this is not always true  
-Table 1 - what do the asterisk mean?  
-Line 253 and 254: how was comprehensive knowledge measured?  
-Line 222 reports awareness to be 97.2%, later on, line 283 reports lack of awareness 23.5% 
being the main reason for non use of modern methods. It will be u seful for the authors to add the 
numbers in addition to the percentage to avoid any confusion  
-How was good self perception measured?  
 
Discussion  
-Line 302 -305: The statement sounds a bit discriminatory and should be reworded, unless the 
authors were expec ting otherwise  
-Line 306: I don't necessary support the comparison with Zimbabwe whose methodology is not 
reported. How about make comparisons with the rest of the population to enable us understand if 
PWD are disadvantaged  
-It is not clear while the quali tative findings are not reported in the results section  
 
Conclusion  
-The authors report low use of modern contraceptive methods among PWD while no comparison 
is made with the general population in Addis Ababa or Ethiopia in general.  
 
Are the methods appro priate 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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusion s drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an ad ditional statistical review is recommended, please specify 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:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 appl ying 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 financi al 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 be low. 
 
I declare that 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 authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
includin g 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://cr eativecommons.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