Reviewer's report
Title:Covert contraceptive use among women attending a reproductive health
clinic in a municipality in Ghana
Version:4Date:28 March 2016
Reviewer: Jane T. Bertrand
Reviewer's report:
Second review: Covert contraceptive use among women attending reproductive
health clinic in a municipality in Ghana
This manuscript is significantly improved. There are a number of small
grammatical issues which the authors should address.
The major substantive issue is that both the abstract and the results section
provide a misleading picture of factors related to CCU, given that the most
powerful portion of the analysis is the multivariate analysis. The authors report
the findings from the bivariate analysis as if these were the major findings (that
marital status and religion are significantly related to CCU). Yet we later learn
that in the multivariate analysis, neither of these factors remain significant. The
authors can remedy this problem by correctly identifying what are bivariate and
what are multivariate results. It is possible that with a larger sample size, these
bivariate correlates would have emerged as significant in the multivariate
analysis.
Once the authors address this shortcoming of the paper and the small
grammatical points, I recommend this paper for publication.
1) Abstract:
a. lines 49 to 51 are poorly worded
b. lines 51 – 52: analysis was…
c. The results section must clarify which results are from bivariate analysis and
which are for multivariate analysis. It is very misleading to suggest that marital
status and religion are related to CCU, when in fact in the multivariate analysis
only length of time desired before next pregnancy is significant. This is a major
problem that must be addressed before publication.
d. Lines 63 – 65: awkward wording
e. How can the authors conclude that being single is the strongest predictor of
CCU, when it was not significant in the multivariate analysis? This problem must
be addressed before publication
2) Body of the paper:
a. page 4, line 139: sociodemographic “characteristics” would be preferable to
“background” since the measure implies a snapshot at the moment of the survey
(whereas background implies something that occurred in the past); same
comment on page 5, line 153.
b. page 4 line 143 – 144: the wording needs improvement
c. page 5, line 161: analysis was…
d. Page 5, line 183, change “taking of notes” to “notes being taken and reported.”
e. Page 6, line 199. Since “being single” is an important characteristic later in the
paper, it is important to specify what percent were single here.
f. Page 6, line 210: assuming this is correct, the authors should start this section
with “at the bivariate level, being single…
g. Page 6, line 213 – 215; awkward wording, hard to follow the point
h. page 7, line 238; the results section continues without clearly specifying that
these results are only true at the bivariate level.
i. Page 11, line 354: does this mean “in previous studies?”
j. Page 11, line 357: it is essential to clarify that this is at the bivariate level
k. page 11, line 367: place a comma after “ municipality.”
l. Page 11, line 372: place a comma after “pills.”
m. Page 11, line 384: remove the, after “future.”
n. Page 12, Lines 395 – 396: reword for greater clarity
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests to declare.