Reviewer's report 
 Knowledge About Contraceptive Mode of Action Among Married Women; A Cross-Sectional Study Title: 
 1  26 April 2006 Version: Date: 
 Kavita Nanda Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General: 
I found this manuscript a bit difficult to understand, partly due to language used. However, the objectives, 
outcomes, and analyses were also unclear. I think this paper would be strengthened by a multivariable analysis, looking at knowledge as the outcome and including provider type, method, education, etc. as 
independent variables. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
1. Abstract: I think you are confusing your outcomes and independent predictors. 
2. Introduction. The objectives statement does not make sense as written. 
3. Methods: The statistics would be strengthened by a multivariable analysis. 
4. Methods: A copy of the questionnaire would be helpful. 
5. Methods: Was the questionnaire tested for validity or reliability? 6. Methods: Were any other questions used to capture the domain of â €œmode of actionâ €? 
7. Methods: Were the women asked about other counseling messages, such as how to use the method, 
when to start, use of additional contraception, side effects, etc? 
8. Results. The use of the term â €œtrendâ € is unclear. This should not be used unless you are actually 
talking about a statistical test for trend. 
9. Results. The odds ratio in the statement â €œBeing counselled was negatively correlated with knowing 
the correct mode of action (â €¦OR=0.66, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.96) is unclear. What is being compared? 
10. Results. The statement â €œHigher educated women were significantly (p<0.001) more likely to know 
the mode of action of the modern contraceptive in use (OR = 3.02; 95% CI 1.99 to 4.58)â € is also unclear. 
Compared to what? 
11. Discussion. The use of the word trend again is inappropriate. 12. Discussion. Too much of the discussion is spent discussing the prevalence of condom use, which was not part of the objective, as far as I can tell. 
13. Discussion. I do not understand the statement â €œThe higher prevalence of counselling did not 
translate into sufficient knowledge about mode of action, which may hint at an â €œinformed choiceâ € 
dilemma.â € 
14. Discussion: I do not understand your statement â €œCounselling for medical contraceptive methods 
with â €œmore complicatedâ € mode of action than barrier methods should be promoted as it seems to be 
effective in terms of establishing the premises for the clientâ €™s informed choice.â € What do you mean? 
Do you mean more women should be counseled to use non-barrier methods in your area? Or do you mean that counseling for non-barrier methods needs to be improved in general? 
15. Tables: In table 2, it would be useful to present the data of your sample compared to the target 
population ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
1. Specify whether informed consent was written. 
2. Specify how/if interviewers were trained. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.