Reviewer’s report
Title:  Experience  obtaining  legal  abortion  in  Uruguay:  Knowledge,  attitudes,  and  stigma  among
abortion clients
Version: 1 Date: 31 Jul 2019
Reviewer: Susan Branch
Reviewer's report:
I have found this research very interesting and in general well written and clear. Some of the sentences
in both the background and discussion section are extremely long. This makes reading and understand
difficult without rereading the sentence...
Please could you clarify: 
- There were almost a quarter of patient (23%) excluded from the study. What were the reasons for
this? Did the patients simply not meet the inclusion criteria or were there other reasons? Is Spanish not
the primary language spoken in Uruguay?
- Discussion section (pg 18 line 1) "These findings align with those of a qualitative study with a subset
of women in this study, which...." this sentence is unclear as to what subset of women in which study
you are referring to?
- Results section (pg 15) "The majority of women (78%) said that women generally had justified
reasons for seeking abortion."  I am assuming this statement means most women seeking abortion not
actually the other women in the study?
- Limitations: is the age criteria of >18yrs not a limitation, especially when you are hypothesizing that
younger women are more stigmatised. I can understand why the age criteria of 18 was used, but
perhaps important to mention...
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 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.
Not relevant to this manuscript
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 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.
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