Title: Contraceptive experience and factors associated with desire for postpartum family
planning among pregnant women of the Nkongsamba Health District, Littoral Region,
Cameroon
Version: 2 Date: 14 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
N/A - no experiments or analyses
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have responded adequately to most of the concerns
raised in my comments.
The authors have mafe changes to reflect their responses in the manuscript itself, and this is
appreciated.
My overall impression is .
that, the authors have done well and their paper is looking better, however they still need to
make some corrections.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The organization the ethical approval was obtained from, is it an independent organization or
attached to an academic/ research institute or the ministry of health?was an ethical approval
number issued? Please write the full name of the ethical approval issuing organization.
I have some reservations with the Table 2 presentation of results.
Since the second author has a background in Statistics, I would advise he reviews and re-does
the table. There's no need to present/ lump results.
Let us see the bivariate analysis separately in another table. Since your outcome is categorical
I expect that the authors will use chi- square tests.
Different types of bivariate analysis include scatter plots, correlation analysis, regression
analysis, chi-square tests, and t-tests/ANOVA. I am not clear as to why the authors have chosen
to refer their bivariate analysis as simple logistics regression. If that is a new way to refer please
provide a reference.
Also why have the authors chosen a level of significance of < 0.25, to. Add to the multivariate
model? Please provide an explanation/justification for this.
The format and structure needs some attention.
All figures less than 10, should be expressed in words e.g four not 4 (check section on study
setting and results section) .
Many of the comparisons done in the discussion section with other previous studies, were
expressed in a confusing manner.
The approach is to state your findings, compare and contrast, and highlight the public health
importance or implications of the common findings or the reason for the differences.
Certain sentences need to be made more concise, especially  in the discussion section.
e.g the sentence in the second to the last paragraph of the discussion, before the conclusions,
instead of saying " this implies that carry an unintended pregnancy is associated with a better
decision"....., just say " unintended pregnancy was associated with....."
The conclusion should be stronger and recommendations made to specific organizations
overseeing reproductive health services in Cameroon.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Authors should recheck their grammar and also their statistics, to ensure there are no errors.
The authors should consider adding one more table, and separate the bivariate and multivariate
analysis.