Reviewer's report
Title:Factors affecting women's intention to use long acting and permanent
contraceptive methods in Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia: A cross-sectional
study Mengistu Meskele1, Wubegzier Mekonnen2 1. School of Public Health,
College of Health Science, Wolaita Sodo University, Wolaita Sodo, PO Box: 138,
Ethiopia 2. School of Public Health, College of Health Science, Addis Ababa
University, Addis Ababa, PO Box: 9086, Ethiopia Email addresses:
1Correspondence: mengistu77@gmail.com 2 correspondences:
wubegzierm@gmail.com 1Author: Mobile: +251-913-17-79-96 2Author: Mobile:
+251-911-66-86-06 Both two authors contributed equally to this work
Version:6Date:7 June 2014
Reviewer: Berihun Megabiaw Zeleke
Reviewer's report:
1. There were critical questions which are hard to address in such a revised
version. For example, most questions in the attitude assessment were purely
awareness questions. However, the researchers came up with just shaping the
questions into “attitude-like” in this revised version which can`t account for an
inappropriately collected data.
2. The authors again have used much of their effort in intensifying the
point-by-point responses for reviewers and changed the paper to its fullest. For
example in their response to the question of “why took all urban centres?” the
response was …. The representation of rural clients was a bit compromised
which could be cited as a limitation of this study. However, in the main paper,
there is no limitation addressing this query (also see study design nomenclature,
interpretation of the Odds ratio which still is the odds of intention, response says
good knowledge but text written in table 5 great knowledge …etc)
3. The qualitative component: not satisfactorily addressed previous comments.
Though the point-by-point response stated as “For qualitative part interviewees
and discussions were done in each facility to as much as possible include
variations of ideas which reflect different contexts in the study health facilities”.
However, in the body of the main paper reads as “Six in depth-interviews with
probing and open ended questions for each client from different health centers
were done. Similarly, another six professionals who were delivering family
planning services, each from different health centers were interviewed by the
principal investigator (see, page 6 last sentence of data collection subsection).
4. Authors commented as … “The purposive of applying maximum variation
sampling method is in order to identify different barriers to family planning
methods based on their different socio-cultural, religious and demographic
situations.” However, only short-term FP users and providers were interviewed
while non-users or LAMP users, partners, etc…. would have been of significance
to do so. Could you please comment on transferability of the qualitative
information?
Minor Essential Revisions
- Is the writing acceptable? Writing needs both structural and linguistic
amendments
And should be critically revised to conform with the basics of scientific literature
(also avoid the use of “&”, very length sentences, the presentation of the
questionnaire within the body of the paper in a numbered/bulleted manner….
- Interpretation of the odds ratio is not acceptable and must be re-phrased
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
None