Reviewer's report
 ARE WOMEN AND PROVIDERS SATISFIED WITH ANTENATAL CARE? Views on a standard Title:
and a simplified, evidence-based model of care in four developing countries
Authors:
Ana Langer (alanger@popcouncil.org.mx )
Mariana Romero (mromero@cedes.org )
Gustavo Nigenda (gnigenda@funsalud.org.mx )
Chusri Kuchaisit (CHUSRI-K@medlib2.kku.ac.th )
Georgina Rojas (rojas@infomed.sld.cu )
Muneera Al Osimi (mun16@hotmail.com )
Jose Villar (villarj@who.ch )
Gilda Piaggio (piaggiog@who.ch )
Jose Belizan (belizanj@clap.ops-oms.org )
Ubaldo Farnot (farnot@infomed.sld.cu )
Yagob Al-Mazrou (yalmazrou@hotmail.com )
Guillermo Carroli (gcarroli@crep.org.ar )
Hassan Ba'aqeel (hassanbaaqeel@hotmail.com )
Pisake Lumbiganon (pisake@kk1.kku.ac.th )
Alan Pinol (pinola@who.ch )
Per Bergsjo (p-bergsj@online.no )
Leiv Bakketeig (arosenkrantz@health.sdu.dk )
Jo Garcia (jo.garcia@perinat.ox.ac.uk )
 1  16 May 2002 Version: Date:
 Dr Caroline Homer Reviewer:
 A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest:
 Accept after discretionary revisions Advice on publication:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The study addresses an important question: 
that is, are women and providers satisfied with a new model of care which includes a reduced schedule 
of antenatal visits? 
. The study is important as it: . includes both women and providers 
. was part of a large randomized controlled trial 
. was conducted with women and providers in 'developing' countries . has important implications for health care providers in 'developed' and aEdevelopingaETM countries in relation to the provision of maternity care. 
The rationale behind the study is well described as are the methods, in particular the means by which 
the sample was drawn. 
I have a few minor suggestions which the authors may consider. 
Specific suggestions: 
. Suggest including in the Abstract a sentence describing what the new ANC model was. 
. Suggest rearranging the Abstract so that the Methods section is before the Results. 
. A description of the translation of the questionnaires and the piloting process. While this can be found in another publication, a sentence describing the process would be helpful. . It would be useful to know how many women refused to be interviewed for the study. The methods 
describe the process by which women were interviewed but it is unclear how many (if any) refused. 
. The reporting of 95% confidence intervals for the differences expressed by the providers would be useful to determine the size of the effect. The confidence intervals are included for the womenaETMs results and it would be helpful for these to be included in the providers data as well. 
. Suggest removing the aEdot pointsaETM in the Discussion. These items can be easily addresses in 
normal text flow. 
. Had the authors considered providing alternative means by which women could seek information and 
support, but without additional visits. In some countries the idea of antenatal aEgroupsaETM or aEdrop 
inaETM sessions have been used to enable women who have reduced conventional antenatal visits to 
receive additional support if they require it. 
Thank you again for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I recommend that it be published with 
minor alterations. 
Competing interests:
None declared.