Title: Home birth and its associated factors among mothers aged 15–49 years in Somalia: A
nationwide population-based cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 12 Sep 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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
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?
No - there are major issues
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?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors tried but did not respond to some of the issues raised
appropriately.
Authors mneed to read the comments carefully and address them objectively.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
In your rebutal, you stated that “The percentage in L5/6 (32%) was not based on our results it
come from previous published reports. However, to clarify for this we have removed the line
and completely modified the abstract section. Please see section–ABSTRACT–– (Lines 4-37
page 1-2)”. First I cant find any 32% in your abstract, Secondly, all information provided in
your abstract should emanate from your own results and not a reference
In your own language, what are the External environment factors?
By my question “Also, what does AOR=2.38 mean? ” I was asking for the interpretation of
adjusted odds of 2.38…It means that the odds of home delivery was more than twice likely
among women with no education than in women with primary education. Etc. These patterns
should be used through out throughout
On “nomadic, rural, and urban sectors? Or areas?” Nomadic are typically rural.. so there will
always be overlaps of the two. While rural-urban distinguishes geographic location, nomadic or
non-nomadic shows mobility
Thank you for pointing out that you followed the methodologies in a paper (https://
doi.org/10.1080/03630242.2016.1267689). Unfortunately, that is not a sufficient reason to use
and methods or procedures. A published work might have used a less appropriate methodologies.
Table 1 is very long, it will be more suitable for supplementary
Your explanation that 13.4% is obtained by -1157 divided by the total number of the sample
studied 8,631 the numerator multiplied by 100 which equals 1157/8631*100 = 13.4%. …is
wrong. Following my questions by interpreting it would have assisted you to make sense of the
computation. As it is, the 13.4% you obtained means that 13.4% of all births were institution
based and from the north west. That gave no information.
Rather, the meaningful analysis is that, of all the 3249 births in the northwest, 1157
(1157/3249*100=35.6%) were institution-based, and that 64.4% of north-west births were at
homes. This should be corrected across all variables and categories.
You must also show the totals for all respondents in the Table. This will agree with your Figure 2.
Table 2 should be about the distribution of the characteristics of the participants and the
prevalence of home births.
The title should be "Table 2: Sample characteristics and prevalence of home births among study
participants"
There is a need for you to read carefully and take advice.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The interpretation of your odds ratio must be explicit as how I interpreted it in the abstract above