Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Contraceptive experience and perception. A survey among Ukrainian women.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 04 Feb 2017  
 
Reviewer: Deborah BATESON  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is an important paper which informs the global community about contraception in the 
Ukraine  which is deserving of publication.  
The overall structure of the paper is good - I have some comments for improvements which 
mainly relate to giving more contextual information about contraception and abortion in the 
Ukraine for readers keen to learn more.   
1. It would be useful in the Background section to provide some general information on where 
and by whom contraception is mainly provided in the Ukraine (by gynaecologists, in 
primary care?) in particular LARC methods; on line 160 of the discussion it s ays that LARC 
methods (implants and IUC) are not available to all women in the Ukraine - perhaps a little 
more context on whether this is geographical, financial or relates to other factors would be 
useful. In relation to IUC (specifically copper IUC) it w ould be useful to briefly know how 
women access them and do women need to pay etc.  
 
2. The comment on line 150 in the discussion relating to how advertising of contraceptive 
methods (presumably including LARC) in neighbouring countries may influence uptake  in 
parts of the Ukraine could be explored further - a bit more background information would be 
interesting  to understand how women learn about methods in the Ukraine compared to 
neighbouring countries.  
 
3. Since the study samples women in abortion clinic s  information about the legal status of 
abortion in the Ukraine and in particular the abortion rate as well as the context of the 
abortion clinics would be helpful - is it at hospitals, private clinic?  
This is especially important given the statement on l ine 147 of the discussion regarding the use 
of induced abortion as a method of family planning in parts of Ukraine - further information on 
the context of this statement would be useful for the reader who is unfamiliar with the Ukraine 
(but keen to learn m ore). 
4. In Table 1 a third column could be used to present statistical analysis of differences (if any) 
between the post abortion and postpartum groups (any differences between the groups could 
be explored - would post -abortal women be more likely to seek  a more effective LARC 
method?)  
 
5. Table 2 could also potentially be divided into post abortion and postpartum groups to look 
for any differences; In Table 4 could be useful to break down by older/younger age groups; 
Figure 1 requires further explanation i n the legends e.g. ever used method  
 
6. On line 167 of the discussion the authors state that unfortunately they did not explore the 
knowledge and attitudes of doctors - perhaps this could be turned into a positive in relation 
to planning a future study in this regard?  
 
7. The discussion could benefit from some specific suggestions/recommendations for 
improving access to LARC for postpartum/postabortion women e.g. specific training, policy 
changes etc; can it also be considered whether these results are/are n ot generalizable to the 
broader population of women using contraception who are not post -abortal or postpartum in 
the Ukraine?; it appears strategies are also needed to overcome misperceptions and it would 
be useful to explore these as well as to look at o ther feasible ways to increase knowledge, 
positive attitudes as well as access for women (education in schools?) .  
 
8. There are a few grammatical/language changes that can be made:  
Examples include:  
1. Convenient sample under methods in the abstract should read 'convenience'  
2. Abstract conclusion - the word 'new' before pregnancy can be deleted  
3. Background line 52 - achieving the MDGs 'by' 2015  
Overall this is a very important study which with min or amendments will be of great interest to 
the global readership.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in th e 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.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Qual ity of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following ques tions:  
 
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 this  
manuscript, 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 yo u 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.  
 
As part of my role I have attended expert advisory boards run by MSD and Bayer Healthcare 
who manufacture contraceptive implants and IUDs respectively but have never received any 
personal remuneration for these services; I have been supported to attend con ferences by Bayer 
Healthcare.  
 
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 report  
including 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 Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be include d in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal