Title: Knowledge, attitude, and factors associated with induced abortion among female students
‘of Private Colleges in Ambo town, Oromia regional state, Ethiopia: -A cross-sectional study.
Version: 3 Date: 24 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author, I am one of the reviewers of your paper.
Your title is somewhat good for the population group you did your research & it has sound
public importance. Saying this I directly go to my feedback to you, hoping that you will address
all information that I drop for you.
1. Your title needs amendments "Knowledge, attitude towards induced abortion and associated
factors among female students in the private colleges at Ambo town, Oromia regional states"
2. Abstract
The background has to be strong enough to show how your outcome variable is affected so try
to show it.
Methods: Is it systematic random sampling or another? Specify
The tool that you used and the response rate of your study participants
At what confidence interval?
Results: Use solid brackets as a whole and parenthesis for the CI for instance [AOR =4.64, 95%
CI: (2.95, 7.30)]
In the body of your document especially in the analysis part, it is not the perception that you
dealt with it rather attitude that is why I am obliged to amend your title & perception was not
measured?
In your conclusion sentence # 2 & # 3 At what percentages we can say small, or what is your
evidence to say so? Because it is about 44.2%. How do sensitize & have you seen the gap is
due to lack of information?
Keyword: Where? Better to add the place or country
3. Introduction part
Sentence # 1 Do you think that Abortion in Ethiopia before 28 weeks of gestational age is really
legal? And why? See your reference again.
Line # 11 Remove the abbreviation (WHO)
The sentence "Many women needing abortion care are in vulnerable situations that make it
difficult for them to exercise autonomous decision-making"  Jargon sentence, therefore makes
it clear.
Methods in 2nd sentence do it makes sense to say capital city? Revise this part there are some
confusing names?
In line # 10 What does it mean? If you mean to say non-health science female students you can
make it clear. Otherwise, it is confusing.
Sampling technique makes it clear your sampling procedure as a whole? Really how do you
reach your study unit?
Operational definition Editorial error and is it enough to say under hygienic only or sterilized
procedure? Your operational definition part is also an indicator for your title that is not
perception, Your title is with the outcome variable of “perception” but your operational
definition is about attitude. I strongly recommend you amend your title.
Data collection tool, procedure, and Data quality control:  Carrying out the pre-test in the same
institution (study area) has an information bias, strongly write how you controlled it?
Do they (study participants)  have their own business or where is the source of the income.
Needs some clarification
Table #1 The age is not categorized appropriately. So re-categorize it, and ultimately needs re-
analysis for it. Because those whose age is 20 are included twice or check for editorial error.
Is it an interview or self-administered?  In your abstract, it says self-administered, so re-write
it otherwise it seems something was wrong?
Figure # Is it your outcome variable toward the induced abortion service that was provided for
induced abortion. Because if you say induced abortion services it can be affected by other factors
which are not present in your document & it contradicts your title even after amendment as I
indicated above. So think of it and edit it if it is editorial problem or another issue you can add.
Please add the p- values to your regression table.
Note: As I said earlier there is no regression/analysis for perception?
Discussion: It is not clear for which reason is your justification. That is is it for higher than or
lower than of study done at somewhere, so re-write for each one by one
Overall in the discussion part, you compare and contrast the factors associated with other studies
with your which is good but while you are doing so if it inlines no need for further explanation
except for higher or lower for each factor. Therefore you are obliged to re-write the discussion
part
You have not studied an internal comparison of health science students with non-health science
students so recommending such away is not sound for the scientific outcome.
Informed consent: It was not an interview, probably self-administered?