Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Differentials in Health -related Quality of Life of Employed and Unemployed Women with 
Normal Vaginal Delivery  
 
Version: 0 Date: 22 Apr 2017  
 
Reviewer: Kim Cox 
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This interesting study explored health -related quality of life in postpartum women in urban 
Nigeria. The authors state than the research was intended to inform policy related to maternity 
leave. Overall, the study design is sound and t he article is fairly well -written. Although the SF -36 
has not often been used in maternity care, the tool itself has well -documented reliability and 
validity. Thus, I found this to be a fairly novel use of it. The article, however, does require some 
minor revisions prior to acceptance for publication, particularly in terms of grammatical editing 
in the English language. In my comments below I have noted a few areas needing clarification.  
Page 2, line 35: I believe the authors' use of the term "working -class  women" was intended to 
describe women who were employed. In the United States, this term refers to a specific 
socioeconomic status that is generally at a subsistence level of income. Therefore, I found the 
use of that term confusing and suggest that a dif ferent term be used to describe employed 
women.  
Page 3, lines 6 -7: The authors state that the "MCS and PCS were shown to have satisfactory 
internal consistency reliabilities." Are the Cronbach's alphas reported for your study or for the 
Iranian version? Th is was unclear to me as stated.  
Page 3, lines 23 -24: regarding personal income - is this income per week, month, or what? Please 
clarify.  
Page 3, lines 59 -60: How was literacy level determined? Also, at the beginning of page 4, it was 
noted that several pa rticipants could not read. A bit more explanation would be helpful.  
Page 4: Section on Table 1: Please tell us a little more about income determination. Was the 
spouse's income or other family income included in the total, or was the reported income level 
from the woman herself? It seems as though this would make a difference in terms of personal 
security, particularly if the woman's husband or relatives had a high level of income whether the 
woman herself was working or not.  
Page 5, line 17: again, the te rm "working class" is somewhat confusing.  
Page 7, Conclusion: I applaud the authors' efforts to illuminate the need for a longer period of 
support during the postpartum period, particularly for older, working women that are likely to 
have several other chi ldren as well. Overall, the findings support the conclusions, and offer some 
evidence for the need for further support for postpartum women juggling multiple 
responsibilities.  
References: A few references are a bit dated. It also appears that they were pri marily accessed 
several years ago, which raises the question of whether more recent resources may be available.  
Thank you for the opportunity to review this article.  
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.  
 
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 manus cript 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:  
 
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, 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 com peting 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.  
 
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