Revi ewer’s report  
 
Title: Induced abortion: a cross -sectional study on knowledge of and attitudes toward the new  
abortion law in Maputo and Quelimane cities, Mozambique  
 
Version: 0 Date: 11 Dec 2019  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The article addresses important barriers towards safe abortion: legislation and perception. Since 
abortion is a controversial procedure, promoting a legal and  secure choice over unsafe methods 
goes beyond the benefits and reduced risk. I consider this paper a valuable contribution to raise 
awareness against misinformation on the abortion law and its benefits in Mozambique.  
 
Major comments  
You should present a m ore conservative objective in terms of external validity as you cannot 
guarantee your sample represents the entire country. In fact, based on the criteria for selecting 
neighborhoods, the sample is not even representative of the two cities, as only poorer and highly 
populated areas were included.  
In most tables, the title should be able to describe the content of the table regardless of the 
context. Adding setting, the study population, data sources and dates can help making them 
clearer.  
Table 5 presents several statistically significant OR in which crude and adjusted estimates are 
very different. These associated factors are mentioned but lightly discussed. Please address them 
more carefully in the discussion.  
It is not clear which variables where used fo r control and neither if they were kept based on 
significance or if all introduced variables were used.  
 
Specific comments  
In the introduction (pg 3, ln19), you should make clear that those percentages are related to 
unintended pregnancies.  
The second para graph of the methods section feels more like discussion. I suggest addressing 
these family organization differences when discussing the differences between the study sites, if 
suitable.  
Table 1 must explicitly say the information refers to the provinces th e cities belong. I suggest 
changing indicators to characteristics.  
Still on Table 1, the specificities of the society systems seem unnecessary, especially the 
importance of paternity one. I would keep them out.  
I suggest merging the first paragraph of the study design with the study population subsection, 
maintaining it in the latter.  
The sampling details could be summarized into one paragraph and the details moved to the 
supplementary appendix.  
"Bivariate and multiple logistic regression analysis were also done taking into account the 
multistage sampling design". You don't need bivariate analysis or logistic regression to account 
for the sampling design. And in Table 3 you present weighted propor tions for the pregnancy 
outcomes.  
In table 2, I suggest presenting the N and % in the same column, with the % within parenthesis. 
E.g. 1234 (25%). Add dash or space between p and value. Indent subgroups to enhance reading. 
Please clarify that mean and SD r efer to age.  
Pg 15 Ln 11 "dating" is quite informal.  
In Table 3 and 4, I find the unweighted proportion unnecessary. Also, the proportion for Maputo 
and Quelimane are weighted or unweighted? OR and CI are missing in the footnote.  
Still in Table 3, it is no t clear what are these OR. And there is no reference to them in the 
"Pregnancy outcomes" subsection.  
Table 5 missing footnote for AOR. It is also important to list all covariates used for adjusting the 
model.  
In table 5, why was the secondary education gro up selected as the reference group?  
Despites the differences in the social communities, judging the importance of paternity seems 
inappropriate.  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your commen ts 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.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
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 req uire 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:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
 
 
 
 
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, eithe r 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 r elating 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 inter ests?  
 
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 decla re that 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 at tachments 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