Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Factors Influencing Mothers’ Decisions Regarding Obstetrical Care in
Western Kenya: A Mixed-Methods Study
Version: 
0 
Date: 
19 Dec 2020
Reviewer: 
Haimanot Abebe
Reviewer's report:
Abstract section
Background: Where is the gap? Make it clear it this section.
Method: 
how you are going to found your study subject for mixed study design
Result: Where is your result finding for Quantitative part of this study? What
does mean contextual, maternal, and systemic factors in the result section?
Conclusion: It's not congruent or in line with you finding so you need to modify
based on your result.
Main text
Background: Enlist the gap you need to fill the limitation from previous
literatures?
Methods: Here in the method section I do have a lot of concern, of this the study
population/source population, Eligibility criteria, sampling procedure and
determination, measurements or operational definition, data quality control and
data collection tool and procedure are the main inquiry. This work for both
Quantitative and qualitative study design
How did you select individuals, simple random, systematic...?
Data and methods lack enough information, are a bit disorganized, the sampling
design and survey sections are very unclear-first and foremost, how were the
study subjects involved in this study?
Result: In line 154- Three hundred and eight women participated in the in-depth
interviews, what does mean? Hence, what type of interview method you used for
the Quantitative study design? What is your response rate?
Your result sections need rewriting specifically for all quantitative findings.
Otherwise your finding will not be achieving your aim and it will not be
scientifically sound.
Discussion: The discussion on the response variable (the first objective) is too
shallow and more general. Better to state which specific character might
contribute to decisions regarding obstetrical care compared to other study
findings? What is the policy implication of each finding? Discussion I do
recommend the author to do discussion by using with all discussion requirements
thoroughly. Conclusion and Conclusion should be study finding only.
Strength and limitation: Do you think you may also have suffered from
desirability bias? In this kind of reported behaviors, they could report to have
been involved while they were not or vice versa?
Conclusions: were difficult to understand not entirely supported by the analysis.
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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.
No conflict of interest in this study
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my
report.
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes