Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Quality of care in family planning services in rural Mozambique with a focus on Long 
Acting Reversible Contraceptives: a cross -sectional survey  
 
Version: 2 Date: 02 Mar 2018  
 
Reviewer: Susan B. Moskosky  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
After the review of this  revised manuscript, I have the same as well as additional concerns about 
the quality of the study and the conclusions that are expressed. In terms of indicators of quality 
of care, the emphasis on LARC uptake as a "solution" seems misplaced at best. The f act that the 
average number of methods discussed in the health centers was two is a huge concern, as well as 
the fact that one -third of women were not told where to go in case of problems or emergencies, 
yet neither of these are discussed in the conclusion s as concerns regarding quality of care. The 
conclusion on lines 368 - 370 that the low level of counseling about LARCS might be explained 
by a so called "provider bias" is not substantiated, as there was no indication that this was 
assessed.  
 
 
In terms of  assessing quality of care using only exit interviews with women is problematic, as 
noted by the author herself in lines 448 - 449, as social desirability in responses is a big issue.  
 
 
Finally, the conclusion as stated on lines 461 - 465 does not fully add ress the quality of care 
components addressed in the Bruce -Jain Framework.  
 
 
 
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.  
 
No 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional  statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
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 dec laration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manusc ript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 comp eting interests' 
below. If you r reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepte d 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.or g/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editor s, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal