Reviewer’s report
Title: A Qualitative Study on Reasons for Early Removal of Implanon among Users in Arba Minch
Town, Gamo Goffa Zone, South Ethiopia: A Phenomenological Approach
Version: 0 Date: 10 Feb 2019
Reviewer: Gretchen S Stuart
Reviewer's report:
The authors present a qualitative study of women in Ethiopia who present requesting removal of their
contraceptive implants.
1. Overall, the manuscript should be cut by 50% in length.  There are many places where the writing 
could be more succinct.
2. The authors report they used a "phenomenological" method - this is new to me.  If the authors are 
presenting a manuscript with a novel methods approach/design they should spend some time 
introducing this in the introduction.
3. The authors present the women in the report in a manner that is somewhat paternalistic.  The role of 
choice and autonomy are incredibly important when discussing and managing the placement and 
removal of contraceptive implants and IUDs. 
4. The importance of improving maternal health by preventing unwanted pregnancies is very important,
but this needs to be balanced with patient choice and agency.
5. The presentation of qualitative data would have been helpful. - Readers still want to know the 
demographics of the cohort so they can understand the similarities of the population described in the 
paper to the populations in which they work.
6. Were the themes predetermined?  this needs to be stated more clearly.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
No
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 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 manuscript
Quality 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 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 I have no competing interests
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 included 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