On 2015 Dec 04, Siddharudha Shivalli commented:

I read the article by Gebre M et al, with a great interest. Authors’ efforts are commendable. In their community based study, authors highlight the lower birth preparedness practice in the study area.

Introduction part of the manuscript should delineate the health problem, research question or the hypothesis in such a way that even reader without subject expertise should be able to understand the present situation and need of the study. Keeping the international readers in the mind, authors should have given a brief explanation of existing programs to address maternal and child health issues, with a special emphasis on birth preparedness, in the introduction. Role of healthcare extension worker in the same should have been delineated. In addition, how the study findings could be useful in streamlining of ongoing strategies to foresee the impact should have been discussed.

The level of birth preparedness should have been reported with 95% confidence intervals (i.e. n=104, 18.3%, 95% CI: 15.3-21.7). Authors used the ‘knowledge of danger signs’ during pregnancy, delivery, and postnatal period as a predictor of birth preparedness. However, in methodology, they should have explicitly mentioned the various danger signs asked to assess the same. In Table 4, authors should have reported row wise percentages to make it clearer. Regression analysis is an excellent way of adjusting the effect of con-founders. However, it is always recommended to assess and report the adequacy of applied regression model. Failure to do so may lead to misleading or incorrect inferences. Although the study sample was relatively large (n=569), a word about R2 (explaining the variance in birth preparedness) of the applied regression model would have been more affirmative.

Nonetheless, I must congratulate the authors for exploring an important public health problem in the study area. No competing interests declared.

On 2015 Dec 04, Siddharudha Shivalli commented:

I read the article by Gebre M et al, with a great interest. Authors’ efforts are commendable. In their community based study, authors highlight the lower birth preparedness practice in the study area.

Introduction part of the manuscript should delineate the health problem, research question or the hypothesis in such a way that even reader without subject expertise should be able to understand the present situation and need of the study. Keeping the international readers in the mind, authors should have given a brief explanation of existing programs to address maternal and child health issues, with a special emphasis on birth preparedness, in the introduction. Role of healthcare extension worker in the same should have been delineated. In addition, how the study findings could be useful in streamlining of ongoing strategies to foresee the impact should have been discussed.

The level of birth preparedness should have been reported with 95% confidence intervals (i.e. n=104, 18.3%, 95% CI: 15.3-21.7). Authors used the ‘knowledge of danger signs’ during pregnancy, delivery, and postnatal period as a predictor of birth preparedness. However, in methodology, they should have explicitly mentioned the various danger signs asked to assess the same. In Table 4, authors should have reported row wise percentages to make it clearer. Regression analysis is an excellent way of adjusting the effect of con-founders. However, it is always recommended to assess and report the adequacy of applied regression model. Failure to do so may lead to misleading or incorrect inferences. Although the study sample was relatively large (n=569), a word about R2 (explaining the variance in birth preparedness) of the applied regression model would have been more affirmative.

Nonetheless, I must congratulate the authors for exploring an important public health problem in the study area. No competing interests declared.