Reviewer's report
Title:Receiving voluntary family planning services has no relationship with the
paradoxical situation of high use of contraceptives and abortion in Viet Nam: a
cross sectional study
Version: 2Date:29 April 2012
Reviewer: Jennifer Smit
Reviewer's report:
The authors have adequately addressed my previous comments and queries. It
is recommended that paper be considered for publication.
Suggested Discretionary Revisions
1. In my previous review I stated “that it might be interesting to also undertake
analyses with current contraceptive users” if this was done. The authors
responded to say that “.. we did a logistic regression with current users only and
the results remain the same (no statistically significant relationships).” It would be
useful for the authors to state this in the text of the manuscript.
2. In my previous review I asked if all participants were ever-users of
contraception as indicated in the Methods Section of the abstract, yet in the
Results section of the paper (1st para) it was reported that 93.5% were ever
users. The authors responded that “.. 93.5% are ever-users.” This needs to be
made clearer in the abstract.
3. In my previous review I asked if participants were ever users, but not current
users, why did they stop using contraception? Could, for instance, side effects
experienced with the method have led to discontinuation and ultimately to the
need for an abortion? The authors responded that: “The number of women who
discontinued the use of contraception was relatively small (95 out of 935).” It
would be useful for the authors to state this in the text of the manuscript.
4. In my previous review I commented as follows: “Results Section, Multivariate
logistic regression, line 22: will the authors explain how they reached the
conclusion: “(and were more likely to have reached their desired number of
children)?” This statement is linked to the sentence indicating that having
previously given birth to a daughter resulted in lower odds of having an induced
abortion and having repeat abortions compared to having previously given birth
to a son. The authors responded: “The rationale of having previously given birth
to a daughter (in a country with two-children per couple policy) means the couple
has to have another pregnancy that may give them a son. But if a son has
already been achieved, then any subsequent pregnancy may or may not be
wanted. For international readers of this paper, it would be useful for the authors
to state this in the text of the manuscript.
5. In my previous review I commented as follows: “Results, Multivariate logistic
regression, 3rd para, “working as a farmer was significantly associated with 43%
lower odds of having an induced abortion …”. Could the authors explain why this
occupation (farming) was singled out for analysis?” The authors responded:
“Farmers accounted for 65% of the study’s respondents. In addition, farmers
always need extra hands to help in the field, so in general they do not completely
buy into the two-children per couple policy with 3 to 5 years of spacing.
Therefore, farming was specifically chosen to be compared with other
occupations. For international readers of this paper, it would be useful for the
authors to state this in the text of the manuscript.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. In my previous review I asked: “Please explain the term maternal age used on
page 9, subsection Bivariate analysis, line 9; and under Multivariate logistic
regression section, line 4. Is this the age at interview as in the Tables?”. The
authors responded “Yes, it is the age at interview, and we have changed the term
to “woman’s age at interview” in the revised text.
It seems that the authors omitted to make these changes, but should do so.
2. Further typographical errors have been identified and the authors should
proof-read the whole document carefully before resubmitting. The following have
been identified:
• Abstract:
- in the background section last sentence – “self-reported” should be changed to
“self-reports”
- In the conclusion section, last line – change “strategy” to “strategies”
• Background: change “reperated” to “repeated”.
• Discussion and policy implications: line 17 (bottom of page 12 – “methodin”
should be “method in” (i.e. two words)
• Conclusion and recommendations:
- In the heading, “Conclusion” is spelt incorrectly
- 4th last line, change “strategy” to “strategies”
3. Acknowledgements:
- Please insert “and” between the acknowledgements for Peter Miller and James
Foreit as it seems they contributed in the same way?
- Change “his” to “their” in the last line.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests