Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Increasing Family Planning in Myanmar: The Role of the Private Sector and Social  
Franchise Programs  
 
Version: 0 Date: 03 Oct 2016  
 
Reviewer: Carrie A Cwiak  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Despite the lack of a control group, the large sample and extensive sampling method of the study 
enable several conclusions to be drawn about contraceptive use and social franchise programs.  
 
 
Overall, the text is wordy and should be reviewed again for proper grammar and syntax.  
 
 
Abstract - The grammar for the Results section is incomplete. The conclusions are overstated 
based on your results (see comments that follow).  
 
 
Background - This section is too long. Delete the 5th paragraph as it is repeated in the methods. 
Move some explanatory information to the discussion.  
 
 
For the sentence that starts on line 53, pr ovide a reference.  
 
 
Methods - Further explain how the proportion to population size method dictates choosing 25 
townships and 95 women in each township. Give a similar explanation for the second stage 
sampling.  
 
 
Please explain why only married women were su rveyed.  
 
 
Page 7, lines 49 -53. Delete these sentences as the information is explained previously in this 
section.   
 
 
Table 2 - It is not necessary to repeat all the results in the text and the table. Consider cutting the 
text that repeats this information. Re order the methods by order of frequency (most used to least 
used, followed by no method) to be most explanatory to the reader. Include the p values. It is not 
clear there is a difference between less than 10 and 10 or greater year programs.  
 
Table 3 - the text and table is redundant here as well. Omit the table in favor of the text.  
 
 
Page 8, Lines 55 -59 - the sentence does not make sense as it is written.  
 
 
Page 9, line 36 - omit this sentence as it is redundant.  
 
 
Line 47,48  - this sentence appears to be missing a word as it does not make sense as written.  
 
 
The confidence intervals for model 4 cross 1 and therefore there is no association between 
number of RH providers and use of a modern method.  
 
 
Table 4 - simplify  this table by removing the single asterisk as p = 0.1 is not a typical level of 
significance.  
 
 
Discussion - Although the results of the study show a positive association between the social 
franchise program and modern method use, this does not necessarily  explain the contraceptive 
use increase from 2009. The first sentence of the discussion should not overstate this.  
 
 
Page 10, lines 30 -35 - the data did not explore increased acceptance and knowledge as reasons 
for the increased contraceptive uptake and so t his conclusion cannot be drawn. These sentences 
should be deleted and only a hypothesis for such be stated.  
 
 
Page 11, line 8 - This sentence is overstated. Model 2 did not have robust effect size and model 4 
was not significant.  
 
 
Lines 21 -31 - delete this  paragraph as it is not clear that private vs franchise is as important as 
private vs public clinic.  
 
 
Lines 38 41 - delete this sentence.  
 
 
Conclusions - again, the first sentence is overstated given your results and needs to be adjusted.  
The map can be omit ted. 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work inclu de the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments 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 a ssess 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:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 interes ts. 
 
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 w ebsite along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under a n 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