Reviewer’ s report
Title: Development and Validation of a Person-Centered Abortion Scale: The Experiences of Care
in Private Facilities in Kenya
Version: 2Date: 12 May 2020
Reviewer's report:
Totally the present article is well-established and the subject is interesting, but some major revision
should be considered.
- More suitable title should be selected for the article.
- The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and majorconclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to standalone.- It is suggested to present the structure of the article at the end of the introduction.- The necessity and innovation of the article should be presented to the introduction.- A flowchart should be added to the article to show the research methodology.- The major defect of this study is the debate or Argument is not clear stated in the introductionsession. Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I would suggest the author to enhanceyour theoretical discussion and arrives your debate or argument.- Sections and sub-sections should be numbered in order.- Following, you will find some new related references which should be added to literature review:Ai, W. Participatory Action Research into Low Literates' Medical Needs in Rural Communities;Paudel, D. R. Catastrophic Health Expenditure: An Experience from Health Insurance Program inNepal;
Kipkorir et al. Gender Perspective on Drivers of Cigarette Smoking: Two Part Model Approach.
- Page 8: the following paragraph is unclear, so please reorganize that:"To increase the interpretability of results, we used oblique rotation, which allows for naturallyoccurring correlation between the rotated factors (Hinkin, Tracey, & Enz, 1997). Internalconsistency reliability of the full scale and each sub-scale was then assessed using Cronbach'salpha. Cronbach's alpha may range from 0 to 1, with a higher value implying greater reliability."- More suitable title should be selected for the table 5 instead of "Reliability, means, and range ofscores stratified by abortion type".- Much more explanations and interpretations must be added for the results, which are not enough.- It is suggested to compare the results of the present research with some similar studies which isdone before.- Please make sure your conclusions' section underscore the scientific value added of your paper,and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Please revise yourconclusion part into more details. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations,underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.
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.
YesAre 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 furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statisticsQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
AcceptableDeclaration 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 thismanuscript, 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.
I declare that I have no competing interests
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 manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.Ifyou are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completingthe review.If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you mustdecide 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)