Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Individual and context correlates of the oral pill and condom use among
Brazilian female adolescents
Version: 
0 
Date: 
25 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
Overall, this is a very well-written paper with sound arguments and conclusions.
The authors clearly state the hypothesis that "female adolescents living in
municipalities that present a better performance in some health indicators are
more likely to use a condom or the pill at the last sexual intercourse than their
peers living in municipalities with inadequate performance on these indicators".
They employ data from the ERICA study to test this hypothesis and discuss the
influence of various variables on female adolescents' contraceptive use,
particularly pertaining to the use of condom or the oral pill. The findings of the
study provide relevant contribution to the subject area. The authors also provide
sufficient relevant background of the study area, which enables the reader to
situate the study.
The following are comments and or suggestions which could help strengthen the
article:
1. The authors introduce the ERICA study as a study of cardiovascular risks in
adolescents early on in the methods section, which is good. I suggest that the
information that the study collected data on reproductive health issues as well
should follow since that is the main part of the dataset utilized for this paper. (I
reckon that all the 11 modules are listed in a subsequent paragraph).
2. The data was collected in 2014, according to the authors. Are the results still
relevant in 2021? The authors could discuss this a little more. For example, are
the contextual factors still the same? What changes may have occurred over the
period that readers should know of?
3. The authors highlight the limitations of the study under the 'Discussion'
section. I suggest that the limitations section should be separated from the
discussion, and given a separate heading.
4. 'HIV/Aids' should be written as HIV/AIDS since AIDS is also an acronym.
5. Page 5: (Methods) - Be more specific about the kind of 'electronic data
collector' used.
6. Few comments related to the writing itself:
a. Abstract (Background): 
"…measures of income and social inequality are associated with contraceptive
use; hence few have focused on maternal and primary health indicators and its
influence on adolescent contraceptive use. …" should be revised to read as
follows:
"…measures of income and social inequality are associated with contraceptive
use. However, few have focused on maternal and primary health indicators and
its influence on adolescent contraceptive use. …"
b. Page 4, paragraph 1, "…influence the use of the oral pill and condom use
among Brazilian female adolescents" should read:
"…influence the use of the oral pill and condoms among Brazilian female
adolescents"
c. Page 9, second paragraph under Discussion; last line should read:
"consequently preventing unintended pregnancies in this group".
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
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 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 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
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes