Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Impact of the Urban Reproductive Health Initiative on family planning uptake at facilities 
in Kenya, Nigeria, and Senegal  
 
Version: 0 Date: 25 Jan 2017 
 
Reviewer:  Mai Do 
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
Major comments  
 
None.  
 
Minor comments  
 
1. Could the authors offer more background information on URHI program and 
intervention? It is not clear from the Methods section how URHI programs are different 
in public and private facilities. Are they offered in both public and private sector? If the 
URHI programs are separate from public and private sectors, did the authors control for 
them?  
 
2. I wouldn't call the facility sample "matched sample". They sounded like panel sample.  
 
3. It would be good to compare facilities included and excluded from the a nalysis and 
discuss how the roughly 40% missing data may affect the results.  
 
4. I am not sure if dividing the number of new or total FP clients by the number of RH staff 
would control for facility size. What changes in the number of clients were faster or 
slower, and it was dependent on facility size?  
 
5. It was not clear whether the authors only included facilities that had data at both points, 
and the number of such facilities was not included in Table 1 as stated. Table 1 only 
presented the number of fac ilities at baseline and at endline.  
 
6. I did not find Table 3 particularly helpful.  
 
7. Could the authors show the distribution and the range of the program scores, and explain 
what a 1 -point increase mean?  
 
8. Related to the previous comment, could the aut hors expand on the program implications? 
They suggested a combination of supply -side approaches. Could they be more specific? 
What would be the most effective combination, as shown from the results?  
 
9. In the discussion, the authors were a bit vague when s uggesting that "future surveys 
might reduce this problem by investing in interviewer training for these types of 
questions." What are these types of questions and what kind of training may it be?  
 
10. Table 1: the distribution of provider received training with the Systematic Identification 
of Client Needs tool at baseline should be 0% instead of 100%.  
 
Are the methods appropriate 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 conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please  explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess 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, e ither 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 relatin g 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 interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name wil l 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 website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available und er an 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