Title: Women’s and male partners’ socio-demographic and economic characteristics associated
with contraceptive decision making in Nigeria
Version: 2 Date: 22 Aug 2022
Reviewer:  Omosivie Maduka
Reviewer's report:
Correlates of Contraceptive Decision-making among Partnered Women of Reproductive Age in
Nigeria: Implications for the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals 5 and 3 in Nigeria
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
REVIEWER’S COMMENTS  FOR MAJOR REVISION
General comments
1. The author(s) are correct about the role contraception plays in reducing maternal mortality
and improving the health and well-being of women of reproductive age. They are also correct
about the linkages between male involvement in contraception decision-making, choice of
contraception use and maternal outcomes. The case they make in the background is therefore
laudable.  Unfortunately, there seems to be a focus on the problems of lack of use of
contraception and a linkage with this to contraception decision-making when this is not the focus
of the study. This study is focused on identifying the factors predicting who makes the choice
for contraceptive use as this will inform interventions among women of reproductive age.
2. It is best for uniformity if partnered is used throughout the abstract and manuscript instead
of married except in direct reference to reviewed research publications. This is because the title
reads partnered to reflect a scope of relationships wider than marriage.
3. Frequencies should always be written alongside percentages. For example, there should be a
frequency before the prevalence of 24% in Line 19 Abstract results.
4. There is no mention or correlation to sustainable development goals in the abstract. At the very
least it ought to feature in the background and/or conclusion after being so prominent in the title.
5. The authors give too many details to the results in the prose such that most of the information
in the text is being repeated in prose. Ideally, the prose should be high-level statements of the
key results in the tables
6. There are multiple issues with grammar and communication. The manuscript is difficult to
understand; sentences are long and windy and there are too many brackets.
Title: This is adequate
ABSTRACT
Background:
1. Line 10-12: The opening statement reads like a conclusion. It portrays the study question as
already answered and the objective met even before the objective is stated. It is therefore a biased
statement. The sentence should rather espouse the importance of contraception decision-making,
the problems of lack of contraceptive decision-making and the common barriers to partnered
women of reproductive age making contraceptive decisions.
2. Line 13-15: This sentence is confusing and needs to be re-couched. I suggest – This study
examined the factors associated with partnered women’s individual or joint contraceptive
decision-making
Methods
1. The study design, sample size and sampling, data extraction tool and process, outcome
variables and ethical considerations need to be included here.
2. Multinomial which refers to regression analysis that allows for a dependent variable with
more than two categories unlike multivariable and binomial in which the dependent variable
must have two categories is what was done. The reference to multivariable regression should
be expunged
Results
1. Page 1 Line 19-20: The percentages ought to add up to 100% but they don’t
2. All statements made in the results Line 20-22 need to be backed up with the relative risk and
95% Confidence intervals
3. What does ARRR mean? Please state
4. I think it is important to state 95% Confidence intervals, not just Confidence intervals (C.I)
5. I suggest that p-values are included after the 95% C.I
Conclusion
1. Page 2 Lines 4-6: The results showed that only 10 per cent of study participants had
contraceptive decision-making solely in the hands of the male partner. I do not think the
conclusion speaks to this result. Why are interventions being recommended if the majority
experienced personal or joint decision-making? I suggest that this conclusion be recast to
highlight the predictors responsible for this positive finding.
Keywords
1. Page 2 Line 7: Contraceptive decision-making is suggested as a replacement for contraceptive
decisions.
2. Page 2 Line 7: Partnered women is suggested as a replacement for women
Background
1. The terms contraceptive decision-making and partnered women need to be explained in the
introduction. What exactly does contraceptive decision-making mean? What decision(s)?
Methods
1. Multinomial which refers to regression analysis that allows for a dependent variable with
more than two categories unlike multivariable and binomial in which the dependent variable
must have two categories is what was done. The reference to multivariable regression should
be expunged
Results
1. Page 9, Line 20-22. The percentages ought to add up to 100% but they don’t. There is also
a disparity between the details of percentages given in the abstract Page 1 Line 19-20 and here.
Please reconcile
2. Table 2 will need to be re-aligned as the table currently appears disjointed
3. Results in prose repeat most of the content in the tables. The result in prose needs to be
shortened.
4. Table 3: The test value (chi-square) should precede the p-value
5. Page 15. Line 1: Multivariable analysis – There is no table indicating that multivariable
analysis was done. Rather Table 4 refers to Multinomial regression analysis
Discussion
1. Page 18. Line 25-26 shows that increasing wealth levels make it less likely for women to
be contraceptive decision-makers alone or in agreement with their male partner. The authors
incorrectly state this as more likely.  This should be corrected.
2. The discussion is lacking in the aspect of relevance of the findings especially as it relates to
SDG Goals 5 and 3 as stated in the title. This should be worked on
Conclusion
Too lengthy. Page 20 Line 22 to 29 and Page 21 line 1-2 would be better suited for the relevance
of the study findings in the discussion.