Title: Utilization of long-acting contraceptive methods and associated factors among married
women in Farta woreda, Northwest Ethiopia: A community-based mixed method study
Version: 4 Date: 04 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Comments
Abstract:
Methods:
- Very little explanation of the qualitative part in the method session
Results:
- Positive attitude is not easy to understand; it is not self-explanatory. It is difficult to understand
what a positive attitude towards a specific method would mean without reading the full article.
Is a positive attitude the same as “acceptance” or “preference” or “understanding”?
- “Husband education” is not self-explanatory. Are authors referring to formal education
attainment or education about long-acting methods?
Conclusion:
- Can the author add the 2020/21 national reproductive health strategy plan target? This will
allow readers to understand how far current coverage of long-acting contraceptives is from the
target.
Introduction
- “However, there is no available evidence on the real magnitude and associated factors of the
demand for LACM in Amhara region specifically in the study area.”
By saying “No available evidence on the real magnitude of LACM use”, are authors implying
that the DHS does not report the prevalence of LACM methods (even if individually) in the
study area?
Sampling
- “If two or more eligible women were encountered in one household, only one was included
using lottery method and if no eligible women were identified in the selected household”
Justify this in the manuscript with a reference for why only one woman LACM user was selected
per household.
- Were there participants involved in both qualitative and quantitative strands? Authors may
want to clarify in the manuscript.
Operational definitions
- Authors may want to provide a brief description of the content of questions used to assess
“attitude”.
- For “physical access to health service”, how did the authors assess how many minutes women
would take to an FP facility. This was not explained.
- Authors should explain how the wealth index was constructed including how many assets
information was collected.
Data collection
- Authors should explain where and how (snowball, convenience, purposive sampling, etc.)
women were selected for the qualitative study?
Data Processing, analysis, and interpretation
- “Finally, the data were analyzed manually according to the main identified thematic areas.”
Were the identified thematics from the quantitative strand or using a conceptual framework that
authors may want to present in their paper?
Results
- Authors may want to write numbers using digits in descriptive analyses, sociodemographic
characteristics, and following sections.
- Table 2: Authors should use one decimal point for proportions.
- “Women who had the lowest quintile health index were 3.3 times (AOR=3.39, 95%CI:
1.33, 8.67)”: authors should confirm the variable mentioned here “health quintile” and in later
sections. Did authors mean wealth quintiles or tertiles?
- Authors should provide a description of the qualitative sample (size, and proportions by key
sociodemographic characteristics).
- Auhtors should explain text written in non-English languages.
- “Partner opposition- partner opposition is the other repeatedly mentioned barrier for utilizing
long-acting contraceptive methods”. Can authors provide the proportion of participants who
mentioned this?
- Authors are strongly encouraged to proofread their manuscripts before submission.