An empirical analysis of the demand for family planning satisfied by modern methods among married or in-union women in Nigeria: Application of multilevel binomial logistic modelling technique

Emomine Odjesa; Friday Ebhodaghe Okonofua

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0300744

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 1, 2023
6 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Obasanjo Afolabi Bolarinwa, Editor PONE-D-23-00022Manuscript Type: Original Research Article An empirical analysis of the demand for family planning satisfied by modern methods among married or in-union women in Nigeria: Application of multilevel binomial logistic modelling technique.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Odjesa, 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 submit your revised manuscript by Dec 21 2023 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, Obasanjo Afolabi Bolarinwa, Masters 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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://aje.com/go/plos) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file)”". 3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 5. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author. [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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 ****** 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: It is important to explain some more details when considering on some social context factors at community level that having statistically significant with dependent variable. Because they are very important for policy implementation. Reviewer #2: The study focused on empirical analyses of demand for family planning satisfied by modern methods among married or in-union women in Nigeria. Please find below a few observations 1. What is MC and NFP (Line 142). Use the full before abbreviation to enable your readers follow through. The use of several abbreviation without earlier stating them in full is not helpful. Please look into it and correct 2. State the contribution of knowledge. This should come after the subheading :Policy Implications" ****** 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: Yothin Sawangdee Ph.D (Sociology) Reviewer #2: Yes: Chukwudeh Okechukwu Stephen ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300744.r001
Revision 1
4 Dec 2023 Author Response I am writing you this letter in order to respond to the comments made by reviewers and editor regarding my manuscript titled ‘An empirical analysis of the demand for family planning satisfied by modern methods among married or in-union women in Nigeria: Application of multilevel binomial logistic modelling technique’. According to the editors, major revisions were required. I have heeded to the comments made by the editors. In relation to this, I have made sure that the referencing, both in-text and referencing list, meets the PLOS ONE publishing standard. I have also made sure that the manuscript generally meets the recommended publishing guidelines, including that for structuring of figures and tables, of PLOS ONE. I have also done a thorough general English language editing using a language editing software called ‘curie’. The British English language was the language of choice used for the editing. I actually used this software twice to edit my manuscript. I have also heeded to the comments made by the reviewers. Reviewer one asked for expansion of the discussion of the community level factors that were statistically significant, as this would be important for policy formation. In relation to this, I actually edited the entire sub-section labelled ‘summary of findings’. Reviewer two, on the other hand, asked for an initial explanation of all the abbreviations/acronyms used. This I have also carefully done. For the specific ones pointed out, ‘MC’ was first used and written in full in line 96, while NFP was first used and written in full in line 101. In addition, I have also included a sub-heading labelled ‘contributions to knowledge’ as part of the discussion section. This was also recommended by reviewer two. Also, I have changed the data availability statement on the application portal online to ‘ some restrictions apply to data availability’. This was done because accessing the data requires making a formal written request at the DHS website (https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Nigeria_Standard-DHS_2018.cfm?flag=0). Upon getting a written approval, the data set can then be freely downloaded. An institutional/organisational access is thus needed. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300744.r002
1 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Jianhong Zhou, Editor PONE-D-23-00022R1Manuscript Type: Original Research Article An empirical analysis of the demand for family planning satisfied by modern methods among married or in-union women in Nigeria: Application of multilevel binomial logistic modelling technique.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Odjesa, 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 submit your revised manuscript by Mar 16 2024 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, Jianhong Zhou Staff Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. [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 Reviewer #2: 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: 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: This revision is acceptable. I agree with an explanation that have been providing. Therefore, I think we able to distribute this manuscript under the journal title. Reviewer #2: The article address the low demand for family planning satisfied by modern method Introduction: The rationale for the study was clearly explained as current mDFPS among married and in-union women is less than 50%. Please check your sentences to be sure you are not repeating words, sentence and ideas. Method A, what is MC, NFP etc. Always state the full meaning of word before abbreviating B. Describe the setting and location of the study C. state the eligibility criteria for your sample D. Variables for the study was clearly outline Discussion Is the study among Nigeria women or among married and in-union women? Please be consistent as women could include single mothers etc. This confusion should be address Limitation of the study This study is limited to Nigeria and the outcome cannot be generalize globally. This should be stated as the limitation of the study ****** 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: Yes: Yothin Sawangdee Reviewer #2: Yes: Chukwudeh Okechukwu Stephen ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300744.r003
Revision 2
21 Feb 2024 Author Response Emomine Odjesa, Centre of Excellence in Reproductive Health Innovation (CERHI), University of Benin, Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria. 19th February 2024 Jianhong Zhou, Staff Editor, PLOS ONE. Dear Sir/ma, Response to reviewers and editors I am writing you this letter in order to respond to the comments made by reviewers and the staff editor regarding my manuscript titled ‘An empirical analysis of the demand for family planning satisfied by modern methods among married or in-union women in Nigeria: Application of multilevel binomial logistic modelling technique’. According to the editor, minor revisions are required. We have heeded to the comments made by the editors. In relation to this, I have made sure that the reference list is complete and correct. I have also made sure that the papers cited, and hence included in the reference list, are current; that is, no retracted papers were included. In relation to this, the reference number [21] was changed to a relevant current paper. I have also, again, done a thorough general English language editing using a language editing software called ‘curie’. The British English language was the language of choice used for the editing. We have also heeded to the comments made by the second reviewer. Reviewer two asked for an initial explanation of all the abbreviations/acronyms used. This I have also carefully done. For the specific ones pointed out, ‘MC’ was first used and written in full in line 96, while NFP was first used and written in full in line 101. In addition, I have also included a sub-heading labelled ‘study setting’ as part of the materials and method section to explain the setting and location of the study, as required by reviewer two to be done. Regarding stating the eligibility criteria of the sample, as required by the second reviewer to be done, several additional words were included under the already existing sub-heading ‘the study’s analytical sample’. From line 274 to 280, the following statement was included: Based on the aims of this study, concentration was done on the married or in-union WRA in Nigeria with a DFP (that is, the totality of NFP), who were also usual residents of the communities in which they were surveyed. This clearly depicts the eligibility criteria for the women to be included in this study and thus represents this study’s analytical sample. Note that only the usual residents of the communities surveyed by the 2018 NDHS were concentrated on in this study because it allowed for examining the possible contextual influences on the likelihood of Nigerian married or in-union WRA with a DFP using MC. Furthermore, from line 319 to 328, the following statement was included under the already existing sub-heading ‘the study’s analytical sample’: Additionally, since this study’s analytical sample was obtained from the 2018 NDHS and because of the sample design of this NDHS, as explained previously, this study’s analytical sample thus covers the entire territory of Nigeria. This analytical sample is therefore representative of the Nigerian population structure, together with its naturally occurring hierarchies. This thus allows for, using appropriate statistical analysis, the distinguishing of individual-level and community-level factors, together with the estimation of the different variances at the different levels, that can possibly influence the likelihood of married or in-union women having mDFPS. Also, it allows for, using appropriate statistical techniques, the generalisation of our result findings from this sample into the Nigerian population. Thus, this analytical sample can be used to meet the aims of this study. In addition, the second reviewer mentioned that the limitation of the non-generalisation of the results, globally, should also be included, because the study was limited to only Nigeria. This was included in line 889 to 895 under the already existing sub-heading ‘limitation of the study’ as part of the discussion section: Additionally, this study is limited to Nigeria, and the outcome thus cannot be generalised globally. However, because the DHS has standardised methodology and data collection processes across countries and has consistent content over time, which in all also leads to the presence of similar variables in the DHS data across and within countries over time, this study can be easily replicated in other African or developing countries where DHS data are available[69]. This approach allows for comparisons of the results across countries and hence across different populations, both cross-sectionally and over time, and even within a country over time[69]. I have also carefully noted under the discussion, in fact in the entire length of this paper, that the study is based on married or in-union women, not just women, of reproductive ages in Nigeria, as mentioned to be done by the second reviewer. I also carefully checked the introduction section, in fact the entire length of this paper, to make sure I was not repeating words, sentences, or ideas, as mentioned to be done by the second reviewer. Also, as previously noted in the first rebuttal letter I sent, I changed the data availability statement on the application portal online to ‘some restrictions apply to data availability’. This was done because accessing the data requires making a formal written request at the DHS website (https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Nigeria_Standard-DHS_2018.cfm?flag=0). Upon getting a written approval, the data set can then be freely downloaded. In fact, from the following link, you can clearly see the conditions required to use the DHS dataset: https://dhsprogram.com/data/terms-of-use.cfm Thank you very much for taking time out to review my initial application, the first revision, and also this present revision. Yours faithfully, Emomine Odjesa. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: A rebuttal letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300744.r004
5 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Yothin Sawangdee, Editor Manuscript Type: Original Research Article An empirical analysis of the demand for family planning satisfied by modern methods among married or in-union women in Nigeria: Application of multilevel binomial logistic modelling technique. PONE-D-23-00022R2 Dear Dr. Odjesa, 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, Yothin Sawangdee, Ph.D Guest Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300744.r005
Formally Accepted
11 Mar 2024 Acceptance Letter - Yothin Sawangdee, Editor PONE-D-23-00022R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Odjesa, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Yothin Sawangdee Guest Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300744.r006

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 .