PONE-D-22-02268Women’s decisions regarding family planning use and its determinants in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Anbesu,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Please, see the additional comments provided below.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 29 2022 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:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled '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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kazeem Babatunde Yusuff

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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

I have carefully reviewed the manuscript titled “Women’s decisions regarding family planning use and its determinants in Ethiopia: systematic review and meta-analysis protocol” and my comments are stated below:

General comment: This proposed study will address an important research question concerning family planning and women’s ability to make decision regarding this within the Ethiopian context. Hence, the study is relevant and warranted especially given challenges that women face in developing settings regarding reproductive health-related choices / decisions. However, I have identified a number of crucial gaps that will require adequate revision before the manuscript is ready for publication. The areas requiring revision are stated below. In addition, the manuscript will generally require professional language editing to improve grammar, syntax, clarity and sentence construction.

Abstract: Appeared relatively well written and focused on the stated aim. The proposed method and brief discussion of the expected results appeared appropriate for the stated aim.

Introduction: Appeared relatively well written but require professional English language editing. Furthermore, authors should address the following points during the revision of the manuscript:

• The review of the existing published body of knowledge in the research area seems inadequate and speculative in some areas. The depth of literature search and summarized discussion of the state of the art of published knowledge in the research area appeared scanty.

• Authors did not provide details of the specific inconsistencies contained in the published findings related to women’s decision-making about family planning and the use of contraceptives in Ethiopia.

• Line 75-77: Lack of details regarding how having greater decision-making power by women will result in the stated benefits.

• Line 77: Lack of details regarding the peculiar factors (social, cultural or economic) that predispose women in Africa to deprivation of reproductive rights? How does this affect their decision-making power during family planning discussions or choices?

• Line 78: Why is that? What factors underline this? Is this cultural or economic? What factors underline this? Is this linked to the lack of decision-making power for women concerning family planning?

• Line 89-92: How? Provide details of how these factors have affected women decision-making power regarding family planning.

• Line 97-99: What were the major findings of these studies? What are the inconsistencies in the data / findings generated from these studies? This is a crucial gap in the introduction section which will provide a solid justification for conducting your SR/MA.

• Line 110: Lack of clarity regarding the specific component / aspect of women's decision-making that will be focused of the SR/MA.

Methods and Discussion: Appropriate for the stated study objective. However, professional language editing is required for grammar, syntax and clarity.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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: No

**********

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: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript is poorly presented and difficult to read and understand. Scientific language is lacking for terms used, research questions and objectives poorly explained, the methodology is difficult to understand and the discussion is lacking depth and coherence.

**********

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.

PONE-D-22-02268R1Women’s decisions regarding family planning use and its determinants in Ethiopia:a systematic review and meta-analysis protocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Anbesu

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.

==============================Please, see as stated below

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 21 2022 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:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled '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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kazeem Babatunde Yusuff

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. Please note that the Study Protocol article type is only suitable for proposals of studies that have not yet generated results. For further information, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-study-protocols

Please update your Cover Letter to indicate whether you wish to have the manuscript considered as a Study Protocol, and confirm that neither recruitment nor data collection have been completed.

Additional Editor Comments:

1. Kudos to the authors for revising the manuscript for grammar, syntax and clarity. However, few minor edits for grammar remain. Please, check the manuscript to identify the areas requiring minor revision for grammar.

2. The response provided by the authors did not address my previous comment regarding ≠ Line 75-77 in the previous manuscript: Lack of details regarding how having greater decision-making power by women will result in the stated benefits. The revision done in line 73-76 of the revised manuscript did not address the comments. Please, revise this section accordingly.

Addressed line 73-76.

3. The response provided by the authors in line 77-84 of the revised manuscript did not address my previous comment regarding ≠ Line 77: Lack of details regarding the peculiar factors (social, cultural or economic) that predispose women in Africa to deprivation of reproductive rights? How does this affect their decision-making power during family planning discussions or choices? Please, revise the manuscript accordingly.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[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.

PONE-D-22-02268R2Women’s decisions regarding family planning use and its determinants in Ethiopia:a systematic review and meta-analysis protocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Anbesu,

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.

The manuscript is still filled with grammatical and syntax errors in several areas, and these errors must be addressed with professional editing. A few of the examples of errors are stated below:

Line 75: “increase to make choices”

Line 77: “increase awareness of women's subordination”

Line 81: “such as the low educational status of women and partners;;”

Line 83” “antennal care visits;;”

Line 85: “such us attitude of family planning methods;;”

Line 91-92” “In developing countries, contraceptive use was low (40%), and the unmet need for family planning was 225 million people [20].”

Line 93-94: “In Ethiopia, contraceptive use was low (41.4%), and there was a high unmet need for family planning use (22%).”

Line 98: “Low upconsumption‒consumption”

Line 104: “and reproductive health services”

Line 113-118: “Moreover, there are studies conducted in different parts of the country on women's decision-making in family planning [8, 25, 31-35]; however, there are inconsistent findings, with a prevalence of women’s decisions regarding family planning use ranging from 35.9% to 98%, and different factors affecting women’s decisions regarding family planning use were reported among the studies, including residence, knowledge, attitude, educational status, occupational status, age, income, husband influence, and number of living children.”

Line 180-183: “The primary outcome of the study was the pooled prevalence of women’s decision making regarding family planning use. Women’s decision making regarding family planning was considered whether women have decision-making power regarding delayed marriage”

Line 185-186: “The secondary outcome of the study was to identify determinates of women’s decision making regarding family planning use”

Line 192-193: “online databases and gray literature will be used to search studies.”

Line 194-195: “Independent search strategies will be performed by (EW and SB).”

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 29 2022 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:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled '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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kazeem Babatunde Yusuff

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. Please note that the Study Protocol article type is only suitable for proposals of studies that have not yet generated results. For further information, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-study-protocols

Please update your Cover Letter to indicate whether you wish to have the manuscript considered as a Study Protocol, and confirm that neither recruitment nor data collection have been completed.

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript is still filled with grammatical and syntax errors in several areas, and these errors must be addressed with professional editing. A few of the examples of errors are stated below:

Line 75: “increase to make choices”

Line 77: “increase awareness of women's subordination”

Line 81: “such as the low educational status of women and partners;;”

Line 83” “antennal care visits;;”

Line 85: “such us attitude of family planning methods;;”

Line 91-92” “In developing countries, contraceptive use was low (40%), and the unmet need for family planning was 225 million people [20].”

Line 93-94: “In Ethiopia, contraceptive use was low (41.4%), and there was a high unmet need for family planning use (22%).”

Line 98: “Low upconsumption‒consumption”

Line 104: “and reproductive health services”

Line 113-118: “Moreover, there are studies conducted in different parts of the country on women's decision-making in family planning [8, 25, 31-35]; however, there are inconsistent findings, with a prevalence of women’s decisions regarding family planning use ranging from 35.9% to 98%, and different factors affecting women’s decisions regarding family planning use were reported among the studies, including residence, knowledge, attitude, educational status, occupational status, age, income, husband influence, and number of living children.”

Line 180-183: “The primary outcome of the study was the pooled prevalence of women’s decision making regarding family planning use. Women’s decision making regarding family planning was considered whether women have decision-making power regarding delayed marriage”

Line 185-186: “The secondary outcome of the study was to identify determinates of women’s decision making regarding family planning use”

Line 192-193: “online databases and gray literature will be used to search studies.”

Line 194-195: “Independent search strategies will be performed by (EW and SB).”

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[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.

Women’s decisions regarding family planning use and its determinants in Ethiopia:a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

PONE-D-22-02268R3

Dear Dr. Anbesu,

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.

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,

Kazeem Babatunde Yusuff

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: