Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Demand- and Supply-side Factors Associated with the Use of
Contraceptive Methods in Pakistan: A Comparative Study of Demographic and
Health Surveys, 1990–2018
Version: 
0 
Date: 
14 Sep 2020
Reviewer: 
Mussie Alemayehu
Reviewer's report:
Demand and Supply Side Factors Associated with the Use of Contraceptive
Methods in Pakistan: A Contemplative Study of Demographic and Health
Surveys, 1990-2018
Abstract
On the background section, it would be better to shows us the gap related to the
topic.
On the method section of the abstract, correct it data was in to data were and the
same in the whole manuscript.
Even though, it was a secondary data set, inform us on the sampling procedure
What type of analysis you use to answer your objective? Is that logistic
regression or other? Type of software?? R or SPSS, STATA
On the result section, A majority of the women were illiterate and not in
employment. Better to inform in number along with the majority.
There is a sentence "There was an increase in the number of women who did not
use contraceptive methods in rural areas over time". And what does it mean and
it should be supported with description of numbers.
What was the criteria for selecting the reference category in the final model??
Does the OR represent Odds ratio or adjusted odds ratio? And if it is OR better to
presents the AOR as clearly depicted in the 
"These findings change slightly in
the adjusted analysis (AOR 0.664, 95% CI 0.562-0.784) in 2012-13 and (AOR
0.654, 95% CI 0.483-0.885) in 2017-18; however, they still show a lower
likelihood of using contraceptives without media exposure.Introduction 
Methods 
* The researchers uses a 
Pakistan Demographic Health Surveys 
(1990-91, 2006-
07, 2012-13, and 2017-18). And what was the criteria for selecting these data set
because the time gap among these is not uniform?
* On page 108-109, the researchers told us The representative samples and
response rates of each PDHS of 108 ever-married women were 6,611 (95%) in
1990-91, 10,023 (95%) in 2006-07, 13,558 (93%) in 109 2012-13 and 15,509
(96%) in 2017-18. Is this response rate or representative? And what does it mean
by representative? 
* Here, better to described the sampling procedures for these surveys? Is there
any modification along time related to; sampling procedure, inclusion criteria,
operational definition and measurements of these variables?
* 
On the wealth index most of DHS use, five categories but here the researchers
use three categories and what was your base?
* On the measurement section, the following variables should be described
clearly
o Exposure to any source of information (TV, radio, newspaper) was computed
and recoded as overall media exposure.
o Intimate partner violence was part of PDHS 2012-13 in which emotional,
physical, and sexual violence were included. Did you have such information in
the 1990-91, 2006-07?
o On the women decision, what does it mean by…." Then all types were
combined into overall autonomy as women who have any type of autonomy as
"Yes" and those who do not have autonomy as "No".
o Does the intention of the authors for these variable [Similarly, going alone to
get medical treatment was categorised into the same two categories] response
categories was big problem and not big problem?
o Nowadays, the definition of unmet need for FP becomes improves over time?
So, what do you do to consider such variation? Plus a detail description about
this is needed.
* On the statistical analysis, correct the data was in data were in the page number
169? Why you prefer to analyze such advanced statics using SPSS and what
about STATA and R software?
* Is that Multivariate analysis or multiple variable logistic regression?
* If there was variation on the content of the questionnaire along the DHS data,
why you describe more on these variables?
* 
Results 
* On the results section add table 1 at the end of the paragraph.
* Add confidence interval, for the contraceptive not-use
* What was the focus of the researchers; contraceptive use or not use
* Focus on the major finding. For example poor vs rich 
* Demand-side factors and current non-use of contraceptives
Data regarding media exposure and non-use of contraceptive methods showed
decreasing trends, 206 from 63.4% in 2012-13 to 54.9% in 2017-18. Is this for
media exposure and non-contraceptive use
* On the Association between demand and supply-side factors and non-use of
contraceptives, it would be better to focus on the adjusted odds ratio(AOR)
Discussion 
* The first part of the discussion section, should answer your object.
* LHWs, what does it mean?
* On using the reference better to use consistent reference either Harvard or
Vancouver.
* On the discussion section, better to add the implication of the study
* 
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 upon publication of the manuscript. 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 publish my name with my
report.
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?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes