Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Use of community-based interventions to promote Family Planning use
among Pastoralist women in Ethiopia: Cluster randomized controlled trial
Version: 
3 
Date: 
01 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised paper. It is much improved,
and I just have a few comments below.
Major comment:
1. Discussion: This is better integrated, but it still needs work. In your first
paragraph in the Discussion section, you can do more to synthesize your results
and tell the reader what this means rather than repeating your Results section.
The other paragraphs still read as if the other studies are the main point, e.g. you
tell what they found and then tell how that compares to what you found. What
you want is to discuss your results and then use other studies to support those
points. A simple example would be, "In line with other studies, this study finds
that male involvement significantly increases modern contraceptive use" and
then you can just cite all of the studies that show that rather than describing all of
the details of the other studies. There might be some cases where you want to
delve more into the details if there are important differences you want to
highlight, but in general, you do not need to describe all of the other studies so
thoroughly. I think it would be helpful to read other papers' Discussion sections
to see the level of detail needed.
Minor comment:
2. Methods: Thank you for addressing my comment about the description of
each arm. I would suggest simplifying your description of the Control group by
deleting "In this arm the following intervention (provision of health education to
the married women and men by faema leader, recording and distributing video
message on FP and provision of specialized training on FP for HEW and health
worker by the project) was not given. Firstly, even though, the existence of
faema structure in this arm training on FP was not given by the project. Along
with the faema leader don't provide of health education on FP to the married
women and men. Secondly, video recorded message from (married women who
start FP use, male who actively involved in FP service, religious leader and
districts FP expert) was not recorded and disturbed. Thirdly, specialized training
on FP by the project (making the health facilities ready for FP service, availing
method mix timely, counselling married women, how to manage side effect and
arranging referral) was not provided to the HEW and health workers." This can
be deleted and you can simply say that the control communities did not receive
the intervention, but did receive the standard government intervention which
included xyz (the last part of this paragraph).
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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 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 manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide 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)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
No