Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Women's experiences seeking informal sec tor abortion services in Cape Town, South 
Africa: a descriptive study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 05 Dec 2016 
 
Reviewer:  Louise  KEO GH 
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
This is an interesting topic a nd there is some value in the approach taken, although it needs a 
stronger justification for open -ended data was not collected. If this is such an understudied area, 
a survey is not the most appropriate data collection method. Surveys are used when the dom ains 
to be explored and the nature of the population is well understood. The data collected is limited 
by the approach taken and this needs further justification/explanation.  
 
In addition, the survey data that was collected is not well presented and theref ore it is not 
currently at a publishable standard. Addressing the comments above and the below specific 
points may lift the manuscript to a publishable standard;  
 
* Paragraph 2 of background repeats much of paragraph 1  
 
* Is the study positioned in any disci pline? Reference to frameworks for understanding 
some aspect of the process would enhance the introduction, e.g health communication, or health 
service utilisation? It is currently not clear to which aspect of our understanding you wish to 
contribute withi n the broad area.  
 
* Need a reference for RDS at the start of methods and for e.g. the sentence below in the 
first paragraph on the methods does not make sense  
 
'asymptotically unbiased estimates from snowball samples through a weighting process in the 
analy sis phase'  
 
* Recruitment. First sentence. Correct the phrase, is it one seed or several?  
 
* Figure 1 is unclear  
 
* Table 1. Marital status is not as relevant to this group as relationship status/sexual 
partners would be - ie. Casual, multiple, committed rela tionship etc. Data on this would be more 
relevant.  
 
* Ditto Employment - when you say none, does this include unpaid caring roles? It would 
normally be more appropriate to list 'unpaid caring' and 'seeking work' separately rather than 
lumping all together as one category.  
 
* Reproductive history. Contraceptive use needs to be contextualised. Please comment on 
whether all women were currently having sex. If not, contraceptive use is not important.  
 
* Table 2. Not very clear. Why are you presenting means? Why only listing number of 
abortions in a facility? Can you also include informal sector abortions so numbers add up?  
 
* Table 5. Were all herbal substances ingested? Please clarify in table. Can you link the 
type of treatment with the abortions that failed and  those that caused side 
effects/discomfort/infection. This is important information.  
 
* Data needs further analysis to draw out more meaning. It is currently not very 
informative.  
 
* References - some spelling errors and one reference appears twice  
 
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 comm ents to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 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 indi cate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 m ay 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, fund ing, 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.  
 
N/A 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journ al. 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 m y 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