Reviewer’s report
Title: Knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of health providers towards safe abortion provision in
Addis Ababa health centers
Version: 1 Date: 02 Mar 2018
Reviewer: Laura Harris
Reviewer's report:
The authors have revised the manuscript taking into account most of the reviewers' comments, and it
has improved. The manuscript could be a candidate for acceptance as long as it undergoes significant
external copy-editing. Otherwise, it is too difficult to understand the English and that alone would
make me recommend not publishing. 
In addition, I still have issues with a few substantive points, as follows:
-In methods and materials: "All questions related to attitude on safe abortion summed, and health
providers who scored ≥ 10.52 had positive attitude towards safe abortion services." → why was 10.52
determined as the cutoff point for positive attitudes?
-If you are defining adequate abortion knowledge as a knowledge score above the mean of
survey participants, then of course roughly 50% of participants will have adequate knowledge. This is a
statistical fact. I instead suggest you determine what is actually adequate knowledge (should subjects
be required to score 40% correct? 80%), and then calculate the percentage of participants that achieved
it. Or forego the notion of "adequate knowledge" altogether.
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.
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.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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
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