Title: The use of Method Information Index (MII) to monitor the amount of information given
to women users of modern contraceptives in Indonesia: results from an analysis of the 2007,
2012 and 2017 Demographic and Health Surveys
Version: 3 Date: 03 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed the revised version of the manuscript “Informed choice, the target 3.7 of the
sustainable development goals (universal access to family planning information and education):
an analysis of the 2012 and 2017 Indonesian Demographic and Health Surveys”, which is now
titled “The use of Method Information Index (MII) to monitor the amount of information given
to women users of modern contraceptives in Indonesia: results from an analysis of the 2007,
2012 and 2017 Demographic and Health Surveys”. The current version of the manuscript has
improved in clarity, has corrected some of the shortcomings of the original submission and an
attempt has been made to respond to this reviewer's comments. However, in its current form, the
manuscript does not accurately represent the findings of the authors. For this reason, I believe
that this manuscript requires some revisions.
These are my main concerns:
1. The authors explain in the response letter why they have chosen the 5 contraceptive methods,
but they missed to include the explanation in the manuscript.
2. AOR should be included in table 3 (results from the multivariate models  - models with no
interactions with survey year dummy variables). By the way, crude odds ratios are usually called
odds ratios (OR). From there, the results in Table 3 should be analyzed since the current analysis
speaks of "statistical significance" but does not refer at all to the coefficients. It should be noted
that the "statistical significance" from p-values  is falling into disuse and the level of uncertainty
is addressed with the use of confidence intervals and standard errors.
3. The dichotomous variable of survey year is missing in Table 4. Additionally, it is not clear to
me whether the reported coefficients are those of the interacted variables or whether they have
also combined with the coefficients of the base variables of the interaction. If the values reported
in Table 4 are the coefficients of the interacted variables, then the authors are not interpreting
the results correctly. The coefficient of the interacted variables cannot be analyzed directly if
the base variables are also included in the model. The joint effect of both (or three) coefficients
should be analyzed alltogether. Statistical significance is not the one that appears directly in the
model, but must be calculated from the variables and the interacted variables. In this case, one
could construct the confidence interval and simply see if 1 is included. Once the correct values
are reported in Table 4, it should be noted that the coefficients are AOR and not OR.
4. In general terms, the authors do not consider that when analyzing the results of a logistic
model, the coefficients, whether OR or AOR, are estimated based on the reference category. So,
when it is said "women in the richest quintile or better educated women have a higher probability
of X of having received information" that probability is estimated with respect to the reference
category defined in the model (in this case, the poorest quintile or women with no education).
Authors should note in the analysis that the probability is with respect to the reference category.
This is particularly relevant when the variable has more than 2 categories.
5. Since the authors present confidence intervals in Tables 3 and 4, I would recommend the use
of standard errors instead of asterisks for the p-value. See comment # 2.
6. The Results section should be updated accordingly to my previous comments.
7. The authors mention in the discussion and conclusions that there is no statistical significance
in the association of the variables included in the model and MII, but do not give an interpretation
in this regard. I would like to know what are the implications of this finding and if the lack of
association is an indication of improvement or worsening of the conditions in Indonesia.