Reviewer’s report
Title: Knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of health providers towards safe abortion provision in
Addis Ababa health centers
Version: 2 Date: 11 Mar 2019
Reviewer: Laura Harris
Reviewer's report:
Thank you  for this revised manuscript, in which you  have responded to many of the reviewers'
comments. My main issue is one you did not address. I don't understand why you define "above the
mean" for knowledge and attitude as  good knowledge and good attitude, but then say 53% had
knowledge above the mean and 54% had good attitude towards abortion? This doesn't make sense from
a statistical point of view - shouldn't each be 50% if it is referring to answers above the mean, by
definition? And, I don't find this to be a helpful cutoff. It is self referential and meaningless to define a
positive attitude as one above the mean for the study population, and then put as a main result that
~50% had a positive attitude. 
Additionally, this article needs significant copy editing, and editing overall, before it can be published.
The author may need to obtain outside help for this task. 
Otherwise this is a very interesting and important study, and I hope that the authors will make the
necessary changes so that it can move to publication.
The  authors  additionally  did  not  clarify  in  which  adjusted  odds  ratios  they  had  adjusted  which
variables. Their current statement indicates that they adjusted all odds ratios for all variables,  which is
not possible to do. I assume they adjusted for which ever variable is not the main variable, for each
regression, and if so they should state that. I had pointed that out in my first review, but they had not
corrected it.
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 am able to assess the statistics
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 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 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 including 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://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