https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2078-1740
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionFebruary 26, 2020 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-20-05351 Low contraceptive utilization among young married women is associated with perceived social norms and believes in contraceptive myths in rural Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dingeta, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. In particular, reviewers 1 and 3 provide very helpful comments to improve the paper. They agree that the setup needs improvement, in particular posing better the research question. You willl benefit from looking at the strobe statement that provides a checkup of research and reporting soundness, https://www.strobe-statement.org/fileadmin/Strobe/uploads/checklists/STROBE_checklist_v4_cross-sectional.pdf In addition, as reviewer 3 points out, stating that the data is available without restriction is not enough to meet PLOS ONE data sharing requirements. The data should indeed be available. Check the journal policy, you have a range of options: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. In your resubmission we invite you to opt for one of them. Otherwise, we would be unable to accept the paper. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 30 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. In addition, please provide further details of the pre-testing of this questionnaire, including the exact number of participants and where they were recruited from. 3. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent. 4. During your revisions, please note that a simple title correction is required to ensure there are no errors of grammar: "Low contraceptive utilization among young married women is associated with perceived social norms and believing in contraceptive myths in rural Ethiopia". Please ensure this is updated in the manuscript file and the online submission information. 5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Partly ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. The authors examined the influence of perceived social norms and beliefs about contraception on contraceptive use among married adolescents and young women in Ethiopia. Data is obtained from a community survey of 3039 young married women aged 14-24 years. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with contraceptive use. General comment: The topic is a very interesting one that is relevant to family planning policies and programmes. There is a growing body of evidence on the link between perceived social norms/contraceptive beliefs and contraceptive use. Although there is merit in the contribution to knowledge, the paper has some conceptual flaws in the analysis and presentation of the results that should be fixed before consideration for publication. Authors included in their analysis of the effects of beliefs on contraceptive use, participants who are not aware of any contraceptive method. This introduces biases in the results. It is not possible to evaluate someone's beliefs and use of contraceptives when they are not aware of it. Analysis of the link between beliefs and contraceptive use should be restricted to those who have ever heard of contraception. It is not clear what study design was used. The study cannot be generalized given its weak design. There are a lot of grammatical errors that should be corrected by a language expert for it to meet publication standards. Specific comments Title: The title of the paper should be written in a proper way highlighting its core content. Currently, it sounds more like a conclusion of the study rather than a title. It should be revised!. The title includes the text‘…in rural Ethiopia’ yet the sample includes participants from urban settings. Abstract There is a lack of clarity on how the association between outcome and independent variables are reported. Report only factors associated with contraceptive use. Introduction Outlining a conceptual model would be useful. The authors should also highlight key hypotheses to be tested in the study.
Methods: It is not clear why the study computed a sample size of 1566, yet all 3102 young women in the study area were interviewed. It does not add value to calculate the sample size when a census is used. There need to clarify why all young women were interviewed instead of the number that was sampled. The inclusion of place of residence, rural vs. urban, is problematic given that the urban sample size is negligible. The result is greatly biased given that the sample was not stratified to allow for comparison between rural and urban. There is a high correlation between age and number of children that might affect the results when these two variables are included in the regression model. Also, adolescents <19 years are more vulnerable and are not as exposed compared to young women 20-24. The study can be strengthened by comparing participants <19 years with those aged 20-24 years Result Table 2: Instead of bi-variate logistic regression, do a simple comparison between contraceptive users and non-users by perceived social approval and beliefs using column totals. It also important to compare the mean scores of index indicators between users and non-users Table 3: The title is ‘Multivariate logistic regression…’ However, there are some bi-variate results in columns 2&3. These should move to Table 2. It is not clear which variables are controlled in the multivariate model. This makes it very difficult to infer the effects of perceived social norms and beliefs on contraceptive use. A more precise way to handle this would to running a separate model with the main independent variables without controls and another with the controls. Review how the logistic regression results are reported. There seems to a confusion between the outcome and independent variables in the way the odds are reported. It is, therefore, very difficult to understand the magnitude and the direction of the effect of the independent factors on the outcome. Reviewer #2: Comments for manuscript Low contraceptive utilization among young married women is associated with perceived social norms and believes in contraceptive myths in rural Ethiopia I believe it is well articulated and useful manuscript. My comments are, in the result section mean and standard deviations should be reported rather than SE. Discussion: there is low contraceptive utilization in your study area even compared to the surrounding areas. You tried to tell us the presence of persistent socio-cultural norms that encourages large family size and then non-use of contraceptives methods at young age in rural setting. But the utilization is still lower than other rural areas. I suggest to find out more on the possible factors that contributed low utilization in your study area. Reviewer #3: 1. Introduction: In the final statement of the introduction, in which you describe the aim of the study, it would be beneficial to describe this in more detail, so that you are very clearly stating the aim and the scope of the paper. Stating that the aim is to assess contraceptive behavior is perhaps too broad. Please also see below comments on pieces that could be elaborated on in the introduction, specifically the main independent variables. 2. Study setting: The description of the study site is very useful. It would be helpful to list the statistics you listed for the site for Ethiopia in general, so we can compare it to the average for the country. This will help to put your findings in context. 3. Methods and materials: It would be helpful to clarify how the sample was actually chosen. This section on sampling would benefit from the actual equation used with the inputs provided (contraceptive utilization, precision, design effect, and non-response). Why were all women included if the sample size was far exceeded? Were women contacted in their homes (was this a household survey?) Additionally, since half of the sample had no education, it may be useful to clarify how written informed consent was obtained for those who may not be able to read/write. 4. Variables and measurements: It would be very helpful to understand whether these injunctive norms and descriptive norms fit into a conceptual framework of some sort. How are these norms theorized to affect behavior? It would be very helpful to have a description of these norms/their expected effect on behavior in the introduction section of this paper, to help frame the research you conducted to the audience. Please also specify what all of the response options are for each of the norm and myths and misconception variables. Did you hypothesize any sort of relationship between your two main predictor variables? It would be helpful to explain how you think the norms as well as the belief in myths/misconceptions might be related, in the introduction. Did you predict that one would be more important than the other, or that while they might be independently associated with the outcome, one would no longer be significant in multivariate analyses? There are a lot of scale variables included, especially for variables that are not main predictors for the model. You may consider reassessing whether all of these are needed. Additionally, if you decide to keep them all, please elaborate on the items included in the contraceptive knowledge scale. 5. Data analysis: Is table 2 necessary for helping to understand the paper? I didn’t understand the purpose of this analysis from the description in the methods, perhaps because you had already described how the scales were calculated in the previous section of the methods. The Cruide ORs Table 2 may be too much information, and could be considered for an appendix if you decide it is needed. If it is needed, please elaborate on its purpose more in this section of the methods. I also don’t think you need to refer to the table numbers in the methods section. The sentences where you describe that the scale variables were all included as continuous variables in the model is confusing because you describe how these variables were developed/coded in the variables and measurement section. I think you could put these sentences in the variables section instead. The data analysis section should also clearly state that multivariate logistic regression was conducted, I don’t think this statement was included. 6. Results: The frequencies for age in Table 1 do not add up to 100. If there are missing data, please clarify this. On the other hand, the frequencies add up to more than your total sample size. Please clarify. For the duration of continuous utilization, is that among current users only? I don’t understand the purpose of the Cruide ORs from Table 2 in the body of the paper, perhaps it could be included in an appendix. 7. Results: The text describing Table 3 needs to be heavily revised. The odds ratios are not described in the correct way – the odds are of current contraceptive use, not of the background characteristics. Please revise here and in the abstract and discussion as well. Please also continue to be very clear about the outcome and include “current” in contraceptive use. It would also be helpful to show the reference groups for all variables, even those with 2 categories. Then you could also add the Frequency(%) of contraception for each variable. I would also put the main predictor variables at either the beginning or the end of the table so they stand out. 8. I think the discussion clearly explores a lot of the main findings from the results. In the paragraph on descriptive norms, in the second sentence, it’s unclear whether the authors are arguing that it’s a misperception that most young women aren’t using contraception, when this study showed only 14% were using. Please elaborate on this possible reason women aren’t using. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to elaborate on the relationships between these two norms as well as the relationship between norms and believing in myths. Please also spend a bit more time elaborating on suggested interventions and future research, perhaps among positive deviants. I’m not sure I understand this sentence in the limitations: “Additionally, it could be argued that the positive association between contraceptive use and subjective norm may be due to contraceptives users may more likely to perceive others’ approval than who were not using.” Please elaborate. Minor/Other: Was there a minimum age for inclusion in this study? Figure 1 is very hard to read. I think this study would strongly benefit from a copy-edit for clarity, grammar, and minor issues with formatting in the text (this, along with the description of the ORs as mentioned above is the reason I selected No for Question 4). PLOS One author guidelines state that contacting the corresponding author for data is not sufficient to meet their data availability guidelines. ********** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: George Odwe. Ph.D. Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
|
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-20-05351R1 Low contraceptive utilization among young married women is associated with perceived social norms and believing in contraceptive myths in eastern Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dingeta, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. I believe the manuscript has greatly benefitted from most changes. One of the referees agrees with the changes, referee 3 has not answered but I believe that most of the comments have been taken. Making the data available is also a great move that can help increase the visibility of the article.
Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 17 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors have adequately addressed most of comments. I have not additional comments on the revised manuscript. ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 2 |
|
PONE-D-20-05351R2 Low contraceptive use, perceived social norms and belief in contraceptive myths among young married women in Eastern Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dingeta, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Some of the issues raised have been addressed but others have not. In particular, two points remain: 3- Possible limitation, differences with DHS protocol. You argue that this is not an issue, but I cannot judge this based on the information I have. I am concerned, for instance, about probing questions regarding knowledge that can make a difference (and are known to make a difference). Please provide a copy of the questionnaire so that this can be assessed. If the protocol is exactly the same, please make it clear in the paper If it is different, acknowledge that as a possible limitation and describe in what ways it is different. 7- I insist in the model with an ever-mother covariate. You could include both models for comparison, but I think it is even more important after showing the strong bivariate link, As I said there are important reasons to include it: married youth with no children are very likely to desire getting pregnant and, therefore, not to use contraception. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 05 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 3 |
|
PONE-D-20-05351R3 Low contraceptive use, perceived social norms and belief in contraceptive myths among young married women in Eastern Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dingeta, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. There were two issues left: - ISSUE 1: 3- Possible limitation, differences with DHS protocol. You argue that this is not an issue, but I cannot judge this based on the information I have. I am concerned, for instance, about probing questions regarding knowledge that can make a difference (and are known to make a difference). Please provide a copy of the questionnaire so that this can be assessed. If the protocol is exactly the same, please make it clear in the paper If it is different, acknowledge that as a possible limitation and describe in what ways it is different. RESPONSE: You are giving me a link to the DHS questionnaire. I know that one. What I was asking was to provide a copy of YOUR questionnaire. I am still unable to assess what I was mentioning. And, as I said, it is not a question of simmilarity. If it is not identical in the protocol (example: probing with knowledge of methods, ...) you have to acknowledge that as a possible limitation and describe in what ways it is different. That is still missing. ISSUE 2: I insist in the model with an ever-mother covariate. You could include both models for comparison, but I think it is even more important after showing the strong bivariate link, As I said there are important reasons to include it: married youth with no children are very likely to desire getting pregnant and, therefore, not to use contraception. RESPONSE: We appreciate your concern and addressed it by including both models (age and ever-mother status) based on your suggestion. I welcome the addition of the model. You must see how important is the coefficient on ever-mother. But, still, the model is not commented in the text. You should. Please go back to my original comments on the reason for my insistence with including the variable: I understand your argument of multicollinearity of age and parity, also raised by referee 1, but for the reason given above (pressure to become mother), it would be good to include at least a variable distinguishing ever-mothers. One would expect the variables of age lose importance after including it, but it is ok. Also much lower CP for non-mothers would be expected. Please include the variable in the multivariate analysis since non-mothers are less likely to use contraception. Note that l.205 says you are controlling by parity which seems not to be the case (after the addition of the variable, it will). Please comment on this in the main text. Please also change the names of the models that do not read well. You can call them model 2a and model 2b or models 2 and 3 or something like that. Please also add some measure of model fit for models 1, 2a and 2b that could be used to choose among them, such as AIC, BIC, Nagelkerke pseudo R-squared, etc. Make sure that the results reported throughout the text refer to the best model and make it clear in the text. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 26 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 4 |
|
PONE-D-20-05351R4 Low contraceptive utilization among young married women is associated with perceived social norms and believing in contraceptive myths in rural Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dingeta, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. There were two issues left. 1. Regarding the questionnaire, you convinced me that you were following the same DHS protocol. I suggest changing the current sentence "We followed the DHS questionnaire protocol in adapting the questions used to assess contraceptive knowledge and utilization" with something more to the point "We followed the DHS questionnaire protocol for questions on contraceptive knowledge and utilization" 2. I think my instructions were clear "Please also add some measure of model fit for models 1, 2a and 2b that could be used to choose among them, such as AIC, BIC, Nagelkerke pseudo Rsquared, etc. Make sure that the results reported throughout the text refer to the best model and make it clear in the text.". What you have done is to include a sentence that reads confusing "We used Akaike’s information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), and Pseudo R2 in building the regression models. The model with low AIC and BIC, and high Pseudo R2 scores were considered as the final model. Additionally, the model fitness tested using the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit tests". There is no other mention of AIC, BIC or Pseudo R2 in the text. What is going on? I will be more clear: 1. Choose ONE model selection criterium. I'd suggest AIC. 2.. Report in table 2 the AICs for the different models. In particular look at what model is best according to the criterium: model 2a or model 2b, and make notice of it in the main text. 3. Make sure that all references in the text and abstract to results from the models refer to the best model from step 2. COMEBACK ISSUE: The title changed again. It is OK except for "believing" that should be BELIEF. NEW ISSUE: Since you are highlighting in the paper the connection with the variables on social pressure and contraceptive myths, I see that in the "limitations" paragraph (399-416) there is no mention regarding possible alternative interpretations of the contraceptive myths variable which are clearly there in an observational setting such as post-hoc rationalization. In particular you should add something along these lines "Regarding the impact of belief in contraceptive myths, it cannot be ruled out that the relationship is not causal but due to post-hoc rationalization of a refusal to use contraception". Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 04 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 5 |
|
PONE-D-20-05351R5 Low contraceptive utilization among young married women is associated with perceived social norms and belief in contraceptive myths in rural Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dingeta, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Congratulations on a much improved manuscript. The vast majority of issues regarding substance have been addressed. There are important problems regarding readability, though. This is important since a poorly written manuscript will be much less influential. A first problem of factual incorrection that needs to be rewritten is this: 72 Previous studies have reported the highest levels of unmet need, and the lowest and interrupted 73 contraceptive utilization among young married women in developing countries [8]. The cited study does not say what is being said here. It is not a comparative study, it only studies unmet need of young women. In addition, it is not true that young married women have the highest unmet need levels. For instance, https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol38/45/38-45.pdf show that sexually active unmarried young-women have higher levels of demand and unmet need in most DHS surveys than their married counterparts. If we look at unmet need by age in Ethiopia, for instance DHS 2016, in table 7.10.1 we find that unmet need is highest for married women 35-39, and in table 7.10.2 the same applies to all sexually active women. Table 7.10.2 indicates that 15-19 and 20-24 actually have the lowest levels of unmet need. Regarding editing, I provide a detailed assessment of problems. In particular the section on variables and measurement is written very poorly. Throughout the text there remain problems of grammatically incorrect sentences. I give you a detailed list of problematic sentences and proposed solutions, but the final text must be checked throughout afterwards. I also insert a couple of problems that are not only grammatical. 85 associated with women’s contraceptive utilization [15-18]. Studies have also been reported the 85 associated with women’s contraceptive utilization [15-18]. Studies have also reported the 89 Recently, literature increasingly recognizing the strong influence of perceived social norms and 89 Recently, literature increasingly recognizes the strong influence of perceived social norms and 91 perceived social norm is commonly shared beliefs about most people in their social networks’ (reference group) approval of contraceptive practice 92 (injunctive norm), and believe that most 93 people in their network contraceptive behavior (descriptive norm) 91 perceived social norm is commonly shared beliefs regarding people in their social networks’ (reference group) approving of contraceptive practice 92 (injunctive norm), or believing that most 93 people in their network contraceptive behavior (descriptive norm) 94 parents, and husbands' approval influences married young women’s contraceptive utilization 94 parents, and husbands' approval influences young married women’s contraceptive utilization 96 methods [22, 27, 28]. The perception of contraceptives behavior of Friends 96 methods [22, 27, 28]. The perception of contraceptive behavior of friends 98 friends using contraceptives 98 friends are using contraceptives Moreover, 99 studies have been shown the influence of belief in myths and misperception or beliefs of rumors 100 not supported by evidence about contraceptive methods on young married women’s contraceptive 101 use [23, 30-35].133 questions used to measure the exposure variables and a large number of variables assessed like Moreover, 99 studies have been shown the influence on young married women’s contraceptive use of belief in myths and misperception or beliefs in rumors 100 not supported by evidence regarding contraceptive methods [23, 30-35]. In a community-based survey in which multiple Likert scale 133 questions used to measure the exposure variables and a large number of variables assessed like 134 this study, having the largest possible sample size In a community-based survey such as this one, where multiple Likert scale 133 questions are used to measure the exposure variables and there are a large number of covariates, having the largest possible sample size … 135 error within 135 error even within 147 women who were residing in a similar setting outside of the study area. The female data collectors 147 women who were residing in a similar setting outside of the study area. Female data collectors 150 participants and who consented 150 participants who consented 164 The outcome variable was the current contraceptive utilization. 164 The outcome variable was current contraceptive utilization. 165 their spouse were currently using any contraceptive method to prevent or delay pregnancy. Those 166 responded ‘yes’ 165 their spouse were currently using any contraceptive method to prevent or delay pregnancy. Those 166 who responded ‘yes’ 178 in-law believe I should use contraceptive”. 178 in-law believe I should use contraceptives”. 179 strongly agree (5) and the index score was constructed by summing the items score and dividing 180 the total scores for the total number of items 179 strongly agree (5) and the index score was constructed by dividing 180 the total score by the total number of items 180 the total scores for the total number of items (S2 Table). The possible score range from 1-5 with 180 the total scores for the total number of items (S2 Table). The possible score ranges from 1-5 with 181 a higher score indicates that participants perceive their referents are more approve of their 181 a higher score indicating that participants perceive their referents approve more their 184 practice(descriptive norm) was assessed by single item 184 practice(descriptive norm) was assessed by a single item 186 using contraceptive method 186 using contraceptive methods 187 score indicates the stronger the likelihood that respondents thought their peers were using the 188 contraceptive method. 187 score indicates the stronger the likelihood that respondents thought their peers were using 188 contraceptive methods. 192 The statement include 192 The statements include 197 by summing the item scores and divided the total score for the number of ítems 197 by summing the item scores and dividing the total score by the number of items 198 scores range from 1-5, 198 score is in the range from 1 to 5, 203 To control for possible confounding covariates including contraceptive self‐ efficacy, knowledge, 204 inter-spousal communication, household decision-making autonomy, recent exposure to FP 205 information and socio-demographic variables such age, educational status, parity (ever206 mother/never-mother), desired number of children and wealth status were included the 207 multivariate analysis model. 203 The multivariate analysis controls for possible confounding including as covariates contraceptive self‐ efficacy, knowledge, 204 inter-spousal communication, household decision-making autonomy, recent exposure to FP 205 information and socio-demographic variables such age, educational status, parity (ever206 mother/never-mother), desired number of children and wealth status. 209 Contraceptive self‐ efficacy was measured by four items asked 209 Contraceptive self‐ efficacy was measured by four items asking 210 how confident or sure they could use contraceptive and insist husband’s 210 how confident or sure they were they could use contraceptive and insist the husband 211 items include how sure that the woman : could tell her your husband that wanted use of family 212 planning, … could use family planning, … could discuss topic of family planning with husband, 213 and … could use family planning even if her husband did not want. The items responses 211 items include how sure was the woman that : she could tell her husband that she wanted to use family 212 planning, … she could use family planning, … she could discuss topics of family planning with her husband, 213 and … she could use family planning even if her husband did not want. The item responses 216 by the number of item[45]. The scale score range from 1-5 216 by the number of items[45]. The scale score ranges from 1-5 217 level of confidence to use contraceptive methods. The scale had good reliability scale (Cronbach's 217 level of confidence to use contraceptive methods. The scale had good reliability (Cronbach's 220 Spousal communication was measured using a 4-items to ask the respondent how often woman 220 Spousal communication was measured using 4-items asking the respondent how often the woman 221 may discuss things with her husband [45]. Each woman was asked how often she discuss with 221 may discuss things with her husband [45]. Each woman was asked how often she discusses with 223 have, and whether to use contraceptive methods. The item response option ranges 223 have, and whether to use contraceptive methods. The item response options range 230 a range of key household decisions that affect her life and measured using the 10-items scale 230 a range of key household decisions affecting her life and measured using the 10-items scale 237 Contraceptive knowledge was another covariate assessed using 15 items adapted from literature 238 and emphasized on knowledge of specific contraceptive methods 237 Contraceptive knowledge was another covariate assessed using 15 items adapted from the literature 238 and emphasizing knowledge of specific contraceptive methods 240 obtained by summing all items. The score range from 240 obtained by summing all items. The score ranges from 245 whether they were told about FP during their visit to health facility, to Health Extension Worker 246 (HEW) or others Health care Workers (HCWs) who visited their home 245 whether they were told about FP during their visit to a health facility, or by a Health Extension Worker 246 (HEW) or other Health care Workers (HCWs) who visited their home 251 Wealth index was computed by employing principal component analysis (PCA) using items 252 assessed household facilities and possessions. 251 Wealth index was computed by employing principal component analysis (PCA) based on items 252 assessing household facilities and possessions. 254 each component. The score of the first component or factor which comprised of several heavily 255 loaded variables and accounted for the largest variation in the data was categorized into quintiles 256 where each individual fall into 254 each component. The score of the first component or factor comprising several heavily 255 loaded variables and accounting for the largest variation in the data was categorized into quintiles 256 where each individual falls into 257 Additionally, socio-demographic characteristics including current age, age of marriage 258 educational status, residence of living (rural and urban), alive and ideal number of children were 259 included in the analysis. 257 Additionally, socio-demographic characteristics included in the analysis are current age, age at marriage, 258 educational status, place of residence (rural and urban), alive and ideal number of children 272 to the multicollinearity 272 to multicollinearity 275 models. The AIC values were compared in successive models, and the lowest value was considered 276 the best-fit model. The value of AIC showed subsequent reduction throughout the model building 277 which indicates each model improvement over the previous, illustrating the goodness of fit of the 278 final regression model (Table 2). 275 models. The model with the lowest AIC value is model 2b, including parity and excluding age. (Table 2). NOTE. They are non-nested models. It is not the subsequent reduction: it is one or the other. 296 Abbreviations: ANC, antenatal car; 296 Abbreviations: ANC, antenatal care 300 24.6%). Among the study participants, 369 (14.2%, 95% CI: 12.8%-15.5%) were currently using 300 24.6%). Among the study participants, 369 (14.2%, 95% CI: 12.8%-15.5%) were currently using a 306 currently using contraceptive methods (p-value <0.001). More than two-third 306 currently using contraceptive methods (p-value <0.001). More than two-thirds 308 Fig 1. This is current contraceptive utilization 308 Fig 1. Current contraceptive utilization; 315 utilization (AOR= 0.60; 95% CI: 0.49-0.73). Moreover, odd of contraceptive utilization was 315 utilization (AOR= 0.60; 95% CI: 0.49-0.73). Moreover, odds of contraceptive utilization were 318 (AOR=9.68; 95% CI: 4.47-20.90), and attended secondary education 318 (AOR=9.68; 95% CI: 4.47-20.90), and who attended secondary education 332 associated young women contraceptive utilization. Moreover, the more young women belief in in 333 contraceptive myths was negatively associated with their contraceptive utilization. 332 associated young women contraceptive utilization. Moreover, the more young women believe in 333 contraceptive myths was negatively associated with their contraceptive utilization. 338 DHS reports in Ethiopia [49, 50]. Moreover, our finding is far below 40.7% of Oromia; the region 339 where this study conducted but higher than3.4% of neighboring Somali regions’ level of utilization 338 DHS reports in Ethiopia [49, 50]. Moreover, our finding is far below 40.7% of Oromia, the region 339 where this study conducted, but higher than3.4% of neighboring Somali regions’ level of utilization 341 close cultural and religious similarities with the Somali region’s population, the region where the 342 contraceptive prevalence among the lowest in Ethiopia. 341 close cultural and religious similarities with the Somali region’s population, a region with a 342 contraceptive prevalence among the lowest in Ethiopia. 346 income countries [35, 51]. For instance, only 2% of contraceptive users were ever-mother 346 income countries [35, 51]. For instance, only 2% of contraceptive users were not-mothers (I ASSUME THIS IS AN ERROR) 347 likelihood of contraceptive 347 likelihood of contraception 351 marriage to delay the age of marriage 351 marriage to delay the age at marriage 366 mainly from husbands and mother in-law. Furthermore, evidence also showed that young women’s 366 mainly from husbands and mother in-law. Furthermore, evidence also showed young women’s 368 low contraceptive use in our study could be due to many of them comply with the social 368 low contraceptive use in our study could be due to many of them complying with the social 369 expectation which encourages childbearing and disapprove of contraception among young women. 369 expectation encouraging childbearing and disapproving of contraception among young women. 378 finding suggested that women can learn or receive support from friendships regarding 378 finding suggested that women can learn or receive support from friends regarding 388 myths showed the lower the likelihood of reporting contraceptive use 388 myths showed the lower likelihood of reporting contraceptive use 389 previous evidence that identified the negative effect contraceptive related misconceptions on 389 previous evidence that identified a negative effect of contraceptive related misconceptions on 413 approval of desired behavior (i.e., perceived social approval), beliefs of what would happen if fail 413 approval of desired behavior (i.e., perceived social approval), beliefs of what would happen if failing 417 of the social norm, understand the relations between the various constellations, and design tailored 417 of the social norm, understanding the relations between the various constellations, and designing tailored 426 myths and misconceptions about the modern contraceptive method. 426 myths and misconceptions regarding modern contraceptive methods CHECK REFERENCES. Some include obvious errors: 446 2. CSA and ICF, Ethiopia Demographic and Health Sruvey 2016. 2017, Ethiopiam Central 447 Statistical Agency and ICF International: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 455 6. Guttmacher, I. Adding it up:Investing in Contraception and Maternal and Newborn Health for 456 Adolescents in Ethiopia, 2018, Fact Sheet, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2017, 457 https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/adding-it-up-contraception-mnh-2017. 2018. 477 14. Yadav, D. and P. Dhillon, Assessing the impact of family planning advice on unmet need 478 and contraceptive use among currently married women in Uttar Pradesh, India. PloS one, 479 2015. 10(3): p. e0118584-e0118584. 477 14. Yadav, D. and P. Dhillon, Assessing the impact of family planning advice on unmet need 478 and contraceptive use among currently married women in Uttar Pradesh, India. PLOS ONE, 479 2015. 10(3): p. e0118584-e0118584. 506 24. UNICEF, What are Social Norms? How are They Measured? UNICEF 507 / UCSD Center on Global Justice 508 Project Cooperation Agreement, WORKING PAPER, M. Gerry and M. Francesca, 509 Editors. 2014 Sandiago, USA (No dates???) 510 25. UKaid, Social norms, gender norms and adolescent girls: a brief guide. 2015. 513 27. Mardi, A., et al., Factors influencing the use of contraceptives through the lens of teenage 514 women: a qualitative study in Iran. 2018. 18(1): p. 202 JOURNAL, PP? 515 28. Kate, P. and J. Nicola Social norms stop Ethiopian girls from making safe choices about 516 pregnancy(unpublished). 2020. LINK 517 F.N. and A.R. Veloso. Factors that influence the use of birth control by 518 Brazilian adolescents. in BBR Conference. 2012. Paulo – SP – Brazil. 534 35. Mutumba, M., E. Wekesa, and R. Stephenson, Community influences on modern 535 contraceptive use among young women in low and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional 536 multi-country analysis. BMC Public Health, 2018. 18(1): p. 430. PAGES 587 56. Beyeza-Kashesya, J., et al., "Not a Boy, Not a Child": A Qualitative Study on Young 588 People's Views on Childbearing in Uganda. African Journal of Reproductive Health / La 589 Revue Africaine de la Santé Reproductive, 2010. 14(1): p. 71-81. 594 S1 Table. Item used for 594 S1 Table. Items used for 598 S1 Minimal data set 598 S3 Minimal data set Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 18 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 6 |
|
PONE-D-20-05351R6 Low contraceptive utilization among young married women is associated with perceived social norms and belief in contraceptive myths in rural Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dingeta, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. There are still problems of readability. In addition, you should have given a point by point response to the comments. Otherwise it makes revision very difficult. There are still many sentences that are incomplete or with no agreement in number among nouns and verbs, or missing (or with superfluous) pronouns. After a reread I include some, but this is still a problem. These are some of the issues remaining but you are encouraged to copy-edit your article further. Despite the increasingly wider availability of contraception and the level of needs 33 in rural Ethiopia, I asume you mean “Despite the increasingly wider availability of contraceptives and the high levels of potential demand [or unmet need] for family planning in rural Ethiopia, …” Substantial proportion of young married women in low and middle-income countries are at risk of 73 unintended pregnancy due to low contraceptive utilization than their adult counterparts. Young 74 women in the region also often used short-term methods that related to high failure and 75 discontinuation (8, 9). The sentence is not grammatically or factually correct: what does the “than” mean, what is the comparison? As I said in the previous revision, what matters here is unmet need, and the levels are not highest among young married women. Also, women over 18 are adults. As it was discussed it is not true that levels of unmet need are highest. The second sentence is also missing a verb (I guess are related to higher ..). Change proposed to old line 89-93 only partially adopted (missing the second part), and it now reads funny. New line 102: studies have shown, not “studies have been shown” New line 203: higher score indicates high believe in the myths or had 204 misconception about contraceptive methods. Should be “a higher score indicates strong belief in the myths or misconceptions regarding contraceptive methods.” 216 or sure they were they could use contraceptive and 216 or sure they were they could use contraceptives and 221 … she could use family planning even if her husband did not want. The items responses 221 … she could use family planning even if her husband did not want. The item responses 224 by the number of item ( 224 by the number of items ( 231 The item response option The item response options 252 Exposure to FP information in last 12 months 252 Exposure to FP information in the last 12 months 323 utilization (AOR= 0.60; 95% CI: 0.49-0.73). Moreover, odd of contraceptive utilization 323 utilization (AOR= 0.60; 95% CI: 0.49-0.73). Moreover, odds of contraceptive utilization In several places, including table 1 and mention of variables: replace “Number of alive children” with “Number of children alive” Also in this context “Had no children” replace with “Has no children” or, even better “No children alive”. Also in this context, replace “Three and above children” with “Three and more children” 348 where this study conducted, but higher than 3.4% of neighboring Somali regions’ level of 349 utilization among reproductive-age women(2). 348 where this study was conducted, but higher than 3.4% in the neighboring Somali region (2). 396 with current contraceptive utilization. The more young women belief in contraceptive related 397 myths showed the lower the likelihood of reporting contraceptive use. 396 with current contraceptive utilization. The more young women believe in contraceptive related 397 myths, the lower the likelihood of reporting contraceptive use. 398 previous evidence that identified a negative effect contraceptive related 398 previous evidence that identified a negative effect of contraceptive related 434 myths and misconceptions regarding the modern contraceptive methods 434 myths and misconceptions regarding modern contraceptive methods Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 14 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 7 |
|
Low contraceptive utilization among young married women is associated with perceived social norms and belief in contraceptive myths in rural Ethiopia PONE-D-20-05351R7 Dear Dr. Dingeta, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. There is one small change that still needs to be incorporated: In line 92 "or believing that most people in their network contraceptive behavior" is missing a verb. It should be "are using contraceptives" or "are practicing contraception". Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, José Antonio Ortega, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-20-05351R7 Low contraceptive utilization among young married women is associated with perceived social norms and belief in contraceptive myths in rural Ethiopia Dear Dr. Dingeta: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. José Antonio Ortega Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
Open letter on the publication of peer review reports
PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.
We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.
Learn more at ASAPbio .