Reviewer’ s report
Title: “You better use the safer one…leave this one”: The role of health providers in women’ s
pursuit of their preferred family planning methods
Version: 1Date: 12 Mar 2020
Reviewer: Mario Philip Reyes Festin
Reviewer's report:
The paper is already well written and my comments are only related to some suggestions and
clarifications.
1. Page 7. Lines 8 to 10. There seems to a problem with counseling. It may be helpful to have a
more detailed content analyses of the training session on counseling.
2. Page 9. Line 8. We may want to have short explanation on what is universal upset, as it may
mean different things. I tried looking it up and found vague definitions.
3. Page 12. Line 23 to 28. This is more of a comment rather than a review. it is good that the role
of men is being mentioned.
4. Page 19. Line 4 to 10. This is related to the previous comment about what is the content of
counseling, as these lines note that the health providers actually undermine or negate thepreference of method. Some additional comments on the content of the training of counseling maybe described, or other socio-economic factors that affect it.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
YesDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
YesAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
YesAre 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.
Not relevant to this manuscriptQuality 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 thismanuscript, 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, either 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 relating 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' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details
below.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named reportincluding any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal