Reviewer's report
Title:Brazilian Adolescents' Knowledge and Beliefs about Abortion Methods: A
School-Based Internet Inquiry
Version: 1Date:17 October 2013
Reviewer: Alessandra Chacham
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
1- There is no discussion of the limitations of this studies. Ex. The fact that
almost a third of the sample was not allowed to participated by their parents.
That's a limitation of the study right there not discussed by the authors.
2- Why did the students complete the questionnaires on-line over a 15 month
period? It is such a long time and the authors did not explain why it was done in
such a long period at all...
3- In table 3, it is hetero sexual debut only? In the article they say it is for hetero
sexual debut but it is not clear in the table.
4- In table 4, the P-value is it an adequate statistical test to compare the
characteristics of more then two groups? My understanding it is used only for
2X2 tables but I think maybe a statistician should check?
Minor essential revisions:
1- "Exam High school" is not a good translation for "Colégio Aplicação", very
confusing actually, even for me and I know what they meant... The expression
"Magnet schools are used sometimes. Could be an option.
2- The difference among the three schools should better explained since it is
used as a possible explanation for some findings.
3- I think the information about profile of students from public school in Rio could
have been presented in table 1 for comparison.
4- Lower that would been expected for this age group compared to other
surveys, no? This finding should have been discussed. There is some evidence
that better students tend to postpone sexual initiation and those are elite public
schools.
5 - First line, page 13: "a few responses reflected...": The percentage or the
absolut numbers should have been presented here since is presented for other
kinds of responses and it is not a qualitative analysis.
6 - In the conclusion, they suggest that "Further research is needed to determine
the origins of adolescents’ erroneous abortion
information and the extent to which it influences their decisions and behaviour". I
wonder if this survey asked about source of their information about abortion and
sexuality in general. If it did, it should have been presented.
7- I understood that a large majority was against expanding abortion rights. In the
discussion of the results, I feel this finding should have been clearly presented
and discussed in the article not only presented in the table without a deeper
discussion of its meaning. Also, the large variation of the responses among
school should have more explored. Why the technical middle schoolers are more
conservative? Age? Class? Religion?
Discretionary revisions:
1- Page 15, line "...suggesting a potential role of local social norms and
networks...." __ Here I feel that other students characteristics such as parents
education (especially the mother's), social and political mobilization and also
reading habits could have been explored as alternative explanations. Access to
cultural and social capital could be very important here specially in the case of
the "elite school". That social networks differ so much among schools is
presented as possible explanation but never really discussed how and why they
would differ...
When assessing the work, please consider the following points:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? The research problem is
clearly stated.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? Yes in both accounts.
3. Are the data sound? Is seems so.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? Yes, it is does it well, although the discussions could have been
more extensive and deeper in relation to some of the findings.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data? Yes, they are.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? No, they did not present the study
limitations clearly.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished? Yes, it contains a very thorough review to the
literature.
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? Yes, they
are both ok.
9. Is the writing acceptable? Yes, very clear and adequate.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.