Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Increasing Family Planning in Myanmar: The Role of the Private Sector and Social  
Franchise Programs  
 
Version: 0 Date: 29 Nov 2016  
 
Reviewer: Syed Khurram Azmat  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
First of all I would like to congratulate the authors for putting up the case of Myanmar coz of the 
long going conflicts in this country and poor health indica tors. 
 
 
 
Following are some minor to major observations which MUST be addressed before considering 
to publish this anticipated piece of the evidence:  
 
 
 
Title: You have put private sector but I do not see any private sector other than PSI/SUN social 
franchise.  So either to delete private sector and the make the case for PSI only or you may need 
to expand private sector information everywhere.  
 
 
 
Intro: Same as above. I would like to see more information about the private sector, its 
definition, what are the other sources of private sector, share of public and private sector of 
services, share of govt expenditure on FP and OOP expenditure on health and FP. You need to 
have some comparison of FP data some similar or neighboring countries in order to make your 
case st ronger. Right now it seems you are just putting up PSI/Sun case. Refer to last DHS of 
Myanmar and add some important data on FP if available such as fertility preferences; 
knowledge of FP, FP use by wealth quin -tiles, unmet need etc  
 
 
 
Methods: Why have you t ook 24 out of 95 township, please add detailed rationale? There are 
total 14 regions/districts and total 63 districts and 324 townships in the country so why not all 
324 township or a representative sample of the total township? This piece of very imp info  is 
completely missing. Second, how do you describe quality? Third, What sort of training were 
given to to SUN SF providers and how were they differ from public sector provider? The 
rationale seems weak so add a stronger rationale of the intervention  
 
Intervention: Also describe the SUN SF intervention in detail either in the main body or as annex 
so the reader must know how do you contributed to this change in FP use in such difficult 
environment.  
 
 
 
 
Results: A comprehensive section.  
 
Discussion and conclusio n: Under reported. The results shows that public sector is still the 
largest provider of FP almost 60% versus the 40% of private sector (although your sample had 
only PSI/SUN providers so how you can say private sector? Need to improve discussion section 
by putting concrete discussion coz in discussion you are attributing the increase in FO service to 
SUN SF providers not to private sector and private sector has multiple different sources of 
providers.  
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work inclu de 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.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to a ssess 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.  
 
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 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 inte rests'  
 
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 w ebsite along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under a n 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