Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Modern contraceptive methods knowledge and practice among blind and deaf women in 
Ethiopia. A cross -sectional survey  
 
Version: 0 Date: 05 Jun 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable resea rch 
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?  
No - there are minor issues  
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTIO N - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow 
confidence in the results?  
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately  
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
No - there are minor issues  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically 
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Probably - with minor revisions  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: Very good study in general. Its part of the SDG that health of all, 
both able and disables, majority and minorities should be improved on. This study is well 
designed and implemented. I have some comments which must be addressed before th e paper 
becomes suitable for wider audience.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
Page 3 Line 39 -40: change "and risk of sexual practices were common such as multiple sexual 
partner (52.0%), transactional 40 sex (19.7%), and unprotected sex (75.6%)." To "and risky 
sexua l practices such as multiple sexual partner (52.0%), transactional 40 sex (19.7%), and 
unprotected sex (75.6%) were common."  
 
Line 40 -41: What is the relevance of rape in this study? Concept of rape is another study entirely 
although been raped can be cons idered as an exposure to STDs and unwanted pregnancy and 
other psychological outcomes but all these did not contribute in any way to the title of the study.  
Line 44: delete lower  
 
Line 103: remove the heading  
Line 113: This is written in the form of a diss ertation. Kindly put everything in a paragraph 
format. No listing. Moreover, these are questions and not objectives  
Also the first question is not smart. Rather state "what is the level of sexual activity among 
………"  
 
Line 165 -169: Very unnecessary. Delete   
 
Table 1: Insert column percentages for the blinds and the deaf  eg 20(12.3)   4(2.4 etc). Also 
delete all percentage signs (%) except in the column headings  
 Insert total in the last row of the Table.  
 
Line 200 -219; It would have been great to have this  information presented in a Table and 
compared among blind and deaf.  
 
Table 3: Why did the authors exclude several of the respondents characteristics listed in Table 1  
Authors could have even compared usage among the blinds and the deaf  
 
 
Line 290 -293: The  interpretation is inadequate. State that the "the odds of using modern 
contraceptives was higher among older women, …………."  
 
Also, having good self -perception does not increase the odds of MC usage. You reported a OR of 
0.52(0.28 , 0.98) for those who perc eived themselves as "able women". Odds less than 1 is lower 
except your reported values are misplaced!  
 
The outcomes of the qualitative study was poorly presented. It was mixed up with the discussion. 
Authors should rewrite this section. Qualitative results should either be presented with each 
study themes alongside the quantitative results or immediately af ter the quantitative.  
 
The discussion should contain policy implications  
 
 
Note: This reviewer report can be downloaded - see attached pdf file.  
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appro priate 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 conclusion s drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an ad ditional 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:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 appl ying 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 financi al 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 be low. 
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing t he review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
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 
includin g 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://cr eativecommons.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