Kistiana, Sari

Matahari, Ratu

Sugiharti, Sri

Utami, Fitriana Putri

Universitas Ahmad Dahlan Repository

                                      Dear Professor Ratu Matahari, Fitriana Putri Utami, Sri Sugiharti, Sari Kistiana:  We have reached a decision regarding your submission to Walailak Journal of Science and Technology (WJST), "Access of Family Planning Services among Urban Poor Women in Yogyakarta: Family Planning Among Urban Poor". Please revise the manuscript carefully. The manuscript should be resubmitted along with point-by-point explanation according to reviewers'comments. If you disagree with any of the comments, please state your reasons. All corrections are mandatory and must be differentiated with red colour and submit it.  Our decision is to:  Revise the Manuscript  We request that you send a revised manuscript within 30 days, otherwise it may be considered withdrawn.  PS. Please submit in Microsoft Word version with WJST template, the references should be in WJST format, please recheck. Thank you very much for your kind helps.  STEP for upload revised version: Submissions > My Queue > My Assigned > Review > Revisions > Upload file  Author Guidelines: https://wjst.wu.ac.th/index.php/wjst/about/submissions#authorGuidelines    2019 SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.154   ---------------------------------------------------------- Walailak Journal of Science and Technology, Walailak University, Nakhon Si Thammarat 80161, Thailand https://wjst.wu.ac.th   ------------------------------------------------------ Reviewer B: Recommendation: Revisions Required  ------------------------------------------------------  Originality of the work Poor  Experimental design and methodology Poor  Adequacy of the discussion Poor  Technical accuracy Poor  Suitability of references Poor  Use of Tables and Figures Poor  Standard of English Poor  Clarity and conciseness Poor  Referee’s Comments his paper needs a major revision if it accepted (introduction, research gap, methods, results, discussion, benefit, and limitation) ------------------------------------------------------    ------------------------------------------------------ Reviewer C: Recommendation: Revisions Required  ------------------------------------------------------  Originality of the work Adequate  Experimental design and methodology Adequate  Adequacy of the discussion Poor  Technical accuracy Adequate  Suitability of references Adequate  Use of Tables and Figures Adequate  Standard of English Adequate  Clarity and conciseness Adequate  Referee’s Comments lack of writing academic in paper and lack of analysis data ------------------------------------------------------    ------------------------------------------------------ Reviewer G: Recommendation: Revisions Required  ------------------------------------------------------  Originality of the work Adequate  Experimental design and methodology Adequate  Adequacy of the discussion Poor  Technical accuracy Poor  Suitability of references Adequate  Use of Tables and Figures Poor  Standard of English Good  Clarity and conciseness Poor  Referee’s Comments------------------------------------------------------    ------------------------------------------------------ Reviewer H: Recommendation: See Comments  ------------------------------------------------------  Originality of the work Adequate  Experimental design and methodology Poor  Adequacy of the discussion Poor  Technical accuracy Poor  Suitability of references Good  Use of Tables and Figures Poor  Standard of English Adequate  Clarity and conciseness Poor  Referee’s Comments------------------------------------------------------    ------------------------------------------------------ Reviewer J: Recommendation: Revisions Required  ------------------------------------------------------  Originality of the work Good  Experimental design and methodology Adequate  Adequacy of the discussion Good  Technical accuracy Good  Suitability of references Adequate  Use of Tables and Figures Adequate  Standard of English Adequate  Clarity and conciseness Good  Referee’s Comments------------------------------------------------------                                         Revised Manuscript Reviewer C No. Reviewer Has been revised 1. Overall the statistical data is lack to representative places in Yogyakarta Lack of discussion to reveal results Responding to the reviewer, we improved the title of the manuscript as before Yogyakarta to The City of Yogyakarta. The data in the manuscript captured the situation among urban poor which is represented into 3 areas of the poorest area in the City of Yogyakarta ( Mergangsan, Tegalrejo, and Umbulharjo) 2. What’s your novelty? Lack novelty   Novelty of the research added research data from other countries that are similar to the theme of this manuscript. Data related to the recovery of traditional methods of contraception is very minimal. 3. Look for the basic source  I think this theory is L. Green  Right, this study uses L.Green's theoretical approach and has been revised according to the reviewers' input. (abstract page 1, background page 3 on the last paragraph) 4. Not mention yet analysis data  We added some information about data analysis (Page 4) Frequency distribution is done to identify all responses. In addition, it was followed by bivariate statistical analysis (cross tabulation) to identify the relationship between the dependent and independent variables to obtain candidate variables (p <0.25) which would be used as predictors in multivariate analysis (multiple logistic regression). All statistical analyzes of quantitative results will be carried out with the help of STATA version 13.0.  5. Show your good results Peer becomes a factor associated with access to contraceptive services in urban poor groups. It's mentioned in the conclusion of this manuscript. 6. Too general and not representative results  The results shown show an overview of the case investigated and in line with the purposes of the study. 7. What’s your gap research (in Yogyakarta)? This research gap is a review of the factors associated with the use of traditional contraceptive methods. 8. Show your real conclusions based on results  The conclusions on this study have been revised (page 11). Based on the results of data analysis, it can be concluded that the factor affecting to family program access among poor couple in the city of Yogyakarta is peer support.      Reviewer G No. Reviewer Has been revised 1. Add more about the name of the country studied and statements reflecting the methodological approach of the study should be indicated.  Study in other countries has been added to the background (Page 2) 2. Add recommendations for implementing the research on access to family planning services for poor urban women in Indonesia.  Added in the abstract. It is recommended to form a community that focuses on contraception so that it can become a form of education and a support system.  3. The introduction part, the problems at the national level and the problems created for the population of the study, namely poor urban women in Indonesia, are explained. Although there is supporting evidence showing the severity of the problems, the statistics on rates such as population should include additional references for the reliability of the information.  See page 2 in the red paragraph. 4. The authors should review these factors, which have been studied in Indonesia in the past. This will lead to reasons for supporting a gap in this research. The PRECEED-PROCEED model was used as the conceptual framework for this study.  Therefore, the predisposing, enabling and reinforcing factors should be explained in greater detail.  Limited information about traditional contraceptive use in Indonesia. 5. Additional description should be provided on the methods for collecting data and the accuracy of the research instruments.  Furthermore, there are no explanations of the population and sampling process. In the data analysis, the authors should add the statistics used.  Were any other analysis methods used than chi square? [Page 3: Instrument] This research instrument uses a questionnaire which is an improvement from the 2017 Indonesian Demographic and Health Survey questionnaire which consists of 6 parts, namely the sociodemography of respondents, knowledge of family planning, contraceptive use behavior, and access to family planning services, family support, friends, and health workers. In order to maintain the confidentiality of informant data, informed consent was conducted prior to conducting interviews.  [Page 4: Data analysis]  Frequency distribution is done to identify all responses. In addition, it was followed by bivariate statistical analysis (cross tabulation) to identify the relationship between the dependent and independent variables to obtain candidate variables (p <0.25) which would be used as predictors in multivariate analysis (multiple logistic regression). All statistical analyzes of quantitative results will be carried out with the help of STATA version 13.0. 6. In particular, the family support factor is related to religious and cultural values in Indonesia. Are there any weaknesses or limitations in this research?  If there are, these should be stated.  [page 10] Based on the results of the research that has been done, it shows that it is interesting that friends are a factor influencing someone to choose a contraceptive method in the urban poor group. Thus, it is very important to educate couples of childbearing age by initiating the formation of family planning care groups as peer educators, as well as strengthening family planning cadres in each region as family planning facilitators. This research becomes richer if it is deepened by conducting a qualitative study exploring the reasons for using traditional contraceptives from a social and religious perspective.       

Korespondensi dengan jurnal Walailak

https://eprints.uad.ac.id/52687/1/Corresponding%20to%20Walailak%20Journal.pdf

Korespondensi dengan jurnal Walailak

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Universitas Ahmad Dahlan Repository