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: 1 Date: 23 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
There are numerous issues with this paper- both technically and in the writing.   While it is
interesting to run regressions to look at MII, the paper needs improvements before potential
publication.
I will go through the paper point by point.
Title:
- You don't talk about the measure of SDG 3.7.1 (Demand stratified) in this paper, why is it
in the title?
Abstract:
- In the Result section, you say that  "Meaning, over 70% of women contraceptive users were
still uninformed about side effects, what to do, and other available methods." this should be "or"
not "and" since only one has to be a "no" for a women to receive a 0 of MII
- In the conclusion it says " Over 70 percent of reproductive age married women in Indonesia"
it should be 70% of users- not all married women
Introduction
- Beginning of second paragraph needs a citation
- Last paragraph- you talk about 2007 to 2017, I am assuming this is because you are looking at
women who started using methods within 5 years of the 2012 and 2017 surveys, but this is not
clear, nor are you looking at annual time trends, so you should just refer to the two surveys.
Methods
- Here you refer to the number of women interviewed, but in the abstract you say the 40,000+
women are married women, this needs to be clarified- is the number referring to married women
or all women
- You list a study variable as talking with a health worker about FP- well of course this is
important to MII- MII is by definition information a health worker tells you about FP!  This
variable needs to be removed- you can see in the regression results that high OR- that is because
it is definitionally related.  This paper cannot be published with this variable included in the
analysis.
- You also talk about exposure to media in this section, but later refer to FP messaging from
different sources- the writing needs to be clear on which variable you are talking about
- You don't mention if weights and the sampling frame are accounted for in your analysis- they
should be discussed
Results
- Figure 1 would look much better as a series of maps or a table, the bar chart is hard to read
and is suboptimal for displaying the data
- In the second paragraph of page 7- typo where "," is used in the decimal place of a number
- You cannot compare AOR across the two models as you currently have your models structured-
for example saying that the AOR decreased overtime.  You would need to construct a model
combining both surveys with a year dummy indicator and interaction variables to look for
changes in relationships over time
- When you talk about results, you keep talking about women "being more likely to make
informed choices"- this is incorrectly putting the onus on women- when what the MII is really
saying is women are more likely to receive (and remember receiving) this information from
providers.  Women might be well informed from other channels, but MII is focused on the
providers giving information to patients.
- If you aren't going to show the husband variables, remove them from the whole paper.
Otherwise, you need to show them in the multivariate results.  It is ok to have null findings.
- You talk about how there is no significant association with regions, but this is actually only
the case that the reference group is not statistically different from any other region- some of
those regions still might be different from one another, it just depends on which reference region
you choose.
- You should change the reference group for source of FP method- since only a limited range of
methods can be received from a pharmacy/drug store, and shop- it would be more interesting to
choose a location from which more methods are available.
Discussion
- I only read the first paragraph of the discussion since so many changes are needed to the results
section this will surely have to change.   However, I needed to point out that SDG 3.7.1 is not
100% targeted contraceptive use- the indicator is demand satisfied for modern methods among
women with a need for contraception- and the goal is only 75%.  You don't talk about demand
satisfied in this paper, if you want to you should include the demand satisfied trend for Indonesia.