Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods

Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898" }, "headline": "Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods", "datePublished": "2024-08-06T15:06:35", "dateModified": "2025-07-16T15:52:17", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Hawraa Hussein Ghafel" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background There are many different types of contraception, but not all types are appropriate for all situations. Ensuring access for all people to their preferred contraceptive methods advances several human rights including the right to life and liberty, freedom of opinion, expression and choice and the right to work and education, as well as bringing significant health and other benefits. Use of contraception advances the human right of people to determine the number and spacing of their children. Objectives To explore Middle Eastern women’s attitudes toward family planning methods. To identify the actual practices of women in using family planning methods. To examine the relationship between women’s attitudes and their practices regarding family planning. Methodology A cross sectional study was conducted at six Arabic countries from January 2024 to July 2024. The participants were women in reproductive age, they are urban residency, primiparous and multiparous mothers. A non-probability (purposive sample) consist of (198) reproductive age women. The study instrument was a predesigned, structured, and self-administered questionnaire that had been previously validated and used in the study titled “Evaluation of Women’s Attitudes about Contraceptive Methods Use at Primary Health Care Centers in Baghdad City.” The questionnaire consisted of two main sections. The first section collected demographic data, including age, marital status, number of children, educational level, and employment status. The second section contained a series of closed-ended and Likert-scale questions aimed at assessing women’s attitudes toward family planning methods as well as their actual practices and patterns of use. Participants were informed about the objectives of the study and provided with clear instructions on how to complete the questionnaire. Data were analyzed using R version 4.4.3, and the results were summarized in tables and Figures. Results Women are with average age of 32.23±7.9 years in which the highest percentage is seen with age group of 30-39 (40.4%). women have high affective attitudes to use family planning methods (total grand mean= 2.60); have high behavioral attitudes to use family planning methods (total grand mean= 2.56); and have high cognitive attitudes to use family planning methods (total grand mean= 2.56). So, the mean scores indicate high among most of affective, behavioral, and cognitive attitudes. Conclusions The findings of the study revealed that the majority of participating women held positive attitudes toward family planning methods. Furthermore, most of the women reported actively using some form of contraception. These results highlight a generally favorable perception and widespread acceptance of family planning practices among Middle Eastern women, reflecting both awareness and practical engagement in reproductive health decisions. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898", "name": "Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning..." } } ] } Home Browse Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Ghafel HH. Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 4 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154232.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 4 not approved] Previously titled: Understanding of middle east women’s decisions and barriers to use family planning methods Hawraa Hussein Ghafel https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9783-2078 Hawraa Hussein Ghafel https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9783-2078 PUBLISHED 16 Jul 2025 Author details Author details Doctor in Maternal and Neonate Nursing Department, College of Nursing, University of Baghdad, Bab Al-Mua’adham, Baghdad City, 10011, Iraq Hawraa Hussein Ghafel Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Background There are many different types of contraception, but not all types are appropriate for all situations. Ensuring access for all people to their preferred contraceptive methods advances several human rights including the right to life and liberty, freedom of opinion, expression and choice and the right to work and education, as well as bringing significant health and other benefits. Use of contraception advances the human right of people to determine the number and spacing of their children. Objectives To explore Middle Eastern women’s attitudes toward family planning methods. To identify the actual practices of women in using family planning methods. To examine the relationship between women’s attitudes and their practices regarding family planning. Methodology A cross sectional study was conducted at six Arabic countries from January 2024 to July 2024. The participants were women in reproductive age, they are urban residency, primiparous and multiparous mothers. A non-probability (purposive sample) consist of (198) reproductive age women. The study instrument was a predesigned, structured, and self-administered questionnaire that had been previously validated and used in the study titled “Evaluation of Women’s Attitudes about Contraceptive Methods Use at Primary Health Care Centers in Baghdad City.” The questionnaire consisted of two main sections. The first section collected demographic data, including age, marital status, number of children, educational level, and employment status. The second section contained a series of closed-ended and Likert-scale questions aimed at assessing women’s attitudes toward family planning methods as well as their actual practices and patterns of use. Participants were informed about the objectives of the study and provided with clear instructions on how to complete the questionnaire. Data were analyzed using R version 4.4.3, and the results were summarized in tables and Figures. Results Women are with average age of 32.23±7.9 years in which the highest percentage is seen with age group of 30-39 (40.4%). women have high affective attitudes to use family planning methods (total grand mean= 2.60); have high behavioral attitudes to use family planning methods (total grand mean= 2.56); and have high cognitive attitudes to use family planning methods (total grand mean= 2.56). So, the mean scores indicate high among most of affective, behavioral, and cognitive attitudes. Conclusions The findings of the study revealed that the majority of participating women held positive attitudes toward family planning methods. Furthermore, most of the women reported actively using some form of contraception. These results highlight a generally favorable perception and widespread acceptance of family planning practices among Middle Eastern women, reflecting both awareness and practical engagement in reproductive health decisions. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Middle East, Women’s Decisions, barriers, Family planning methods Corresponding Author(s) Hawraa Hussein Ghafel ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Hawraa Hussein Ghafel Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Ghafel HH. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Ghafel HH. Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 4 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154232.2 ) First published: 06 Aug 2024, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154232.1 ) Latest published: 16 Jul 2025, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154232.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 This revised version of the article incorporates substantial changes based on the valuable feedback received during the peer-review process. The title has been modified to better reflect the study's scope, as suggested by the reviewers. The methodology section now includes a clearer explanation of the criteria used to select the six Arab countries analyzed in the research. Additionally, new visual illustrations have been added to clarify the relationships between the key research variables. The introduction and conclusion sections have also been revised to improve coherence, emphasize the study's contributions, and align more closely with the updated findings. This revised version of the article incorporates substantial changes based on the valuable feedback received during the peer-review process. The title has been modified to better reflect the study's scope, as suggested by the reviewers. The methodology section now includes a clearer explanation of the criteria used to select the six Arab countries analyzed in the research. Additionally, new visual illustrations have been added to clarify the relationships between the key research variables. The introduction and conclusion sections have also been revised to improve coherence, emphasize the study's contributions, and align more closely with the updated findings. See the author's detailed response to the review by Augustus Osborne See the author's detailed response to the review by Barbara Friedland See the author's detailed response to the review by Amy O Tsui READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Family planning can hasten a nation’s efforts to end poverty and realize its developmental objectives. Universal access to family planning and other reproductive health treatments is recognized as one of the most important objectives of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of the United Nations. 1 – 3 The high fertility that results from not using family planning methods also raises the risks of health problems for the mother and infant, which lowers quality of life and limits access to jobs employment, education, and nutrition. Family planning methods can be very important for population dynamics, which aid in the nation’s economic stabilization and enable it get over the challenges posed by faster population growth. Unsatisfactory needs and poor family planning use can be explained by fear of negative impacts, rejection from couples, decrease knowledge, and social condemnation. Cultural variations have also been mentioned as having an impact on the use of family planning, particularly with regard to conventional expectations and aspirations for more children and lines. Access to safe abortion services and contraception methods is correlated with low incidence of unwanted pregnancy. After women choose which method. 4 The ability of women to make freely chosen decisions on family planning needs and options, or to disagree with their husbands or partners on these matters, is known as women’s decision-making power in family planning. Couples that use family planning (FP) try to limit the number of children they have. Women make decisions about family planning use based on a variety of factors, such as delaying marriage, having access to reliable information, having open discussions about family planning options and needs with partners, family members, and the community, and making their own decisions about controlling their fertility, including using family planning methods more frequently. 5 Family planning lowers maternal mortality and morbidity and helps prevent unintended pregnancies. Compared to other nations in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Iraq still has a comparatively low prevalence of contraception (58%), and the country’s overall fertility rate (4.2 children per woman) and unmet requirement percentages (12%) are still rather high. Many public and commercial health facilities offer free or significantly subsidized services, but social, cultural, economic, or health care service limits may prevent many women from using them. 6 Both men and women can plan their family sizes and prevent unwanted pregnancies, which not only increase maternal mortality but can also cause distress and anxiety. Reliable contraception makes this possible. Women in the Gaza Strip, Palestine facing challenges in using contraceptives, including user and viewpoints of the providers. Family planning services were not expected because most Palestinian women who visited the clinic had already chosen their method of birth control, with decisions being made by their husbands. 7 – 9 The primary motivation to improved access and support for women in the Middle East must be the experience growing up in the region and seeing firsthand the challenges and barriers women have when trying to obtain family planning. Challenges that impede the Middle East’s ability to get family planning services advancement in reaching family planning objectives, which exacerbates the region’s problems with gender equality and economic mobility. Prioritizing should be given to a number of important areas, such as lack of comprehensive education, healthcare infrastructure, economic restraints, religious influences, and stigma. 10 – 12 In the Arab world, balancing population growth, social and economic development, and environmental resources will also be aided by reducing unmet demand. Of all the regions in the world, the Middle East and North Africa region has the worst freshwater deficit. 13 , 14 An analysis of Egypt’s 2008 DHS demonstrates that Egypt’s total fertility rate the number of births per woman during her lifetime would drop from 3.0 to 1. If women were able to successfully avoid having children as a result of unwanted pregnancies. 2.4 Unplanned pregnancies account for 14% of pregnancies in Egypt. 15 , 16 In nations where the rate of unwanted pregnancies is higher, the effect of lowering it on fertility would be even more pronounced. According to a research by the Higher Population Council of Jordan, if Jordan’s unmet family planning requirement had been decreased to half in 2009, that year’s total number of unplanned births would have been decreased by 10,000, or 6% of all births. 17 Compared to other wealthy nations, Saudi Arabia has a higher birth rate and overall fertility rate, and research has shown a correlation between these high rates and underdevelopment. Due to the swift expansion of the Saudi Arabian economy, there is a growing demand for the use of contraception and birth spacing. 18 – 21 In Lebanon, the overall count of births and cesarean sections is increasing. 22 In Lebanon, the overall count of births and cesarean sections is increasing. There were 34 infant deaths for every 1000 live births, along with 23 births and 7 deaths per 1000 people. The population was rising at a pace of 1.6% per year, which was among the lowest in the Arab world. The 2.3 births were made by the average woman during her reproductive lifetime. 23 Unwanted births worldwide approximately 82% are caused by women who wish to prevent getting pregnant but are not utilizing an effective form of contraception. 24 The Arab world has a high rate of unwanted pregnancies, which burdens people, families, healthcare systems, and social and economic advancement. 25 A person’s ability to choose the quantity, timing, and spacing of their offspring is essential to preserving their reproductive rights. As described in numerous international agreements and human rights documents, reproductive rights stem from the fundamental rights to reproductive autonomy for all persons and couples, free from violence, compulsion, or discrimination. They cover rights related to getting married, starting a family, having children in a healthful manner, and being protected from HIV and other STDs. 26 Methods Study setting A cross sectional study, was conducted at primary health care centers in a six Arabic countries includes (Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Yamane, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia). Women who were attending clinics for routine appointments and who met the inclusion criteria were requested to answer the questionnaire that was designed in a Google Form, and the questionnaire link was sent to them. In selecting the countries included in this study, a purposive sampling strategy was employed to ensure a diverse yet representative understanding of attitudes and practices toward family planning among Middle Eastern women. Six Arab countries were chosen: Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, and Yemen. The selection was primarily based on fertility rate indicators, as reported by recent demographic and health data. Countries with high fertility rates, such as Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, were prioritized to explore potential gaps in family planning awareness and utilization. Jordan and Lebanon were included to provide comparative insights from countries with relatively lower fertility rates but similar cultural and regional contexts. This combination allows the study to capture a broader spectrum of experiences and challenges, offering a more nuanced understanding of family planning behaviors across varying socio-economic and demographic profiles within the Arab world. Study population Non probability (purposive sample) consist of (198) women, which were selected according to inclusion criteria that are women in reproductive age, primiparous and multiparous mothers, and mothers who attended primary healthcare centers. The mothers provided informed consent and agreed to participate. Sample size, sampling technique The study sample size was calculated with a confidence interval of 85%, a population of 30 million women in reproductive age (defined as ages 15 to 49) in the six Arab countries that included in the study, and a 5% margin of error. The sample size was calculated as 208 using OpenEpi (Open Source Epidemiologic Statistics for Public Health). 27 A total of 208 women were included; however, 10 withdrew. The data of 198 participants were statistically analyzed. The inclusion criteria were mothers in reproductive age, primiparous and multiparous women, and women who visited primary healthcare centers. Samples were collected online and the questionnaire link was sent to mothers in six Arabic countries. Data collection and instruments This study was conducted from January 2024 to July 2024.The study instrument was a predesigned, structured, and self-administered questionnaire that had been previously validated and used in the study titled “Evaluation of Women’s Attitudes about Contraceptive Methods Use at Primary Health Care Centers in Baghdad City.” The questionnaire consisted of two main sections. The first section collected demographic data, including age, marital status, number of children, educational level, and employment status. The second section contained a series of closed-ended and Likert-scale questions aimed at assessing women’s attitudes toward family planning methods as well as their actual practices and patterns of use, it was consist of (51) items which are divided in to three main domains first one is (effective domain) consist of (12) items, the second one is (behavioral domain) consist of (17) items, and the last one is (cognitive domain) consist of (22) items. The questionnaire was sent to a panel of experts to assess its content validity. To assess its reliability, a validated questionnaire was distributed to 20 mothers. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.768, indicating the questionnaire’s consistent reliability. Data analysis For the purpose of scoring the scale, three Likert scale was used and scored as follows: (1) never, (2), sometimes, and (3) always. The significant of each barrier in the scale was determined by calculating the range score for mean and determining the maximum and minimum score and rated into three levels: low= 1 – 1.66, moderate= 1.67 – 2.33, and high= 2.34 – 3. For the purpose of analyzing data, the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS- version 24.0) 28 was used through application of descriptive statistics which includes: frequencies, percentages, and mean scores which were used to describe the socio-demographic characteristics and also describe the severity of barrier’s significant. Ethical considerations The study protocol was approved by the Scientific Research Ethical Committee in the College of Nursing at the University of Baghdad Ref. No. 8: January 16, 2024. In addition, permission was obtained from the Iraqi Ministry of Health/Training and Developmental Department to collect data from primary healthcare centers in six Arabic countries. Ethical considerations, including the nature and aims of the study, voluntary participation, right to withdraw from participation, protection of confidentiality, privacy of the informants, use and publication of the study results, storage of data, and benefits of the study, were explained to the participants by the researcher. This information was conveyed in the human ethics form and verbally reinforced before data collection. The researcher informed the women about their rights of voluntarily participation, withdraw at any time, confidentiality, and privacy. Women who agreed to participate were asked to sign the consent form. Study ethical considerations including the nature and aims of the study, voluntary participation, the right to withdraw from participation, the protection of confidentiality and privacy of the informants, the use and publication of the study results, the storage of data, and benefits of the study were explained in writing to candidates. This information was conveyed in the human ethics application form. It was also verbally reinforced before the conduction of the interview. Results The analysis of this Table 1 shows that women are with average age of 32.23 ± 7.9 years in which the highest percentage is seen with age group of 30-39 years (40.4%). Regarding level of education, the highest percentage is seen with 22.7% of those who graduated from institute or college. The nationality of women distributed equally from various countries; Iraq (16.7%), Lebanon (16.7%), Jordan (16.7%), Yemen (16.7%), Egypt (16.7%), and Saudi Arabia (16.7%). Table 1. Socio-demographic Demographic Characteristics of Women. Characteristics No % Age (years) M±SD= 32.23±7.9 Less than 20 6 3 20 – 29 74 37.4 30 – 39 80 40.4 40 ≤ 38 19.2 Total 198 100 Wife’s level of education Doesn't read & write 9 4.6 Read and write 28 14.2 Primary 35 17.7 Intermediate 31 15.6 Secondary 41 20.7 Institute/College 45 22.7 Postgraduate 8 4.1 Total 198 100 Wife’s Occupation Housewife 100 50.5 Governmental employee 94 47.5 Free works 4 2 Total 198 100 Nationality Iraq 33 16.7 Lebanon 33 16.7 Jordan 33 16.7 Yemen 33 16.7 Egypt 33 16.7 Saudi Arabia 33 16.7 Total 198 100 Table 2 indicates that women have high affective attitudes to uses family planning methods (total grand mean = 2.60); the mean scores indicate high among most of affective attitudes except (Contraceptives can actually make intercourse seem more pleasurable) and (Contraceptives are not really necessary unless a couple has engaged in intercourse more than once) that show moderate. Table 2. Evaluation of Affective attitudes to use of family planning methods among Women (N=198). List Causes Mean Evaluation 1 Feel that family planning methods protect me from pregnancy and make me not feel anxious during sexual intercourse. 2.81 High 2 Feel more relaxed during intercourse if a contraceptive method is used. 2.69 High 3 Feel contraceptives make pregnancy seem too planned. 2.80 High 4 Feel contraceptives make intercourse seem too planned. 2.51 High 5 Contraceptives can actually make intercourse seem more pleasurable. 2.24 Moderate 6 Contraceptives are worth using, even if the monetary cost is high. 2.70 High 7 Would feel embarrassed discussing contraception with my friends. 2.56 High 8 Sex is not fun if a contraceptive is used. 2.36 High 9 Contraceptives are not really necessary unless a couple has engaged in intercourse more than once. 2.25 Moderate 10 Feel that females who use contraceptives methods kill their children. 2.83 High 11 I feel that contraception is solely my husband's responsibility. 2.86 High 12 I feel the limitations when using contraceptive methods. 2.66 High Total Grand mean 2.60 High Table 3 reveals that women have high behavioral attitudes to uses family planning methods (total grand mean = 2.56); the mean scores indicate high among most of behavioral attitudes except (After a sudden intercourse, I use an emergency contraceptive method to prevent pregnancy), (I would practice contraception even if my partner did not want me to) and (I prefer that my husband be receptive to the responsibility of using contraceptive methods) that show moderate. Table 3. Evaluation of behavioral attitudes to use of family planning methods among Women (N = 198). List Causes Mean Evaluation 1 To get the number of children I want, using contraception methods. 2.86 High 2 For the sake of my family and children, I use contraception methods. 2.88 High 3 I won't have enough time to take care of myself and my other children if I don't use contraception methods. 2.76 High 4 After a sudden intercourse, I use an emergency contraceptive method to prevent pregnancy. 2.19 Moderate 5 I would practice contraception even if my partner did not want me to. 1.98 Moderate 6 If I experienced negative side effects from a contraceptive method, I would use a different method. 2.74 High 7 I would not have intercourse if no contraceptive method was available. 2.27 High 8 Couples should talk about contraception before having intercourse. 2.89 High 9 If I don't use family planning methods, I will get an unwanted child or at an inappropriate time. 2.67 High 10 Using contraceptives makes a relationship seem too permanent. 2.53 High 11 In the future, I plan to use contraceptives any time I have intercourse. 2.59 High 12 I prefer that my husband be receptive to the responsibility of using contraceptive methods. 2.07 Moderate 13 I prefer to use contraceptives during intercourse. 2.92 High 14 I do not talk about contraception with my friends. 2.63 High 15 I don't know how to use contraception methods so I don't use them and avoid them. 2.65 High 16 Because of the side effects, I don't use contraception methods. 2.40 High 17 The use of contraceptive methods is not acceptable to my husband. 2.58 High Total Grand mean 2.56 High Table 4 depicts that women have high cognitive attitudes to uses family planning methods (total grand mean = 2.56); the mean scores indicate high among most of cognitive attitudes except (I think that the natural method is effective in family planning), (I think implantation is good for family planning) and (I think it is better to have a tubal ligation to prevent childbearing) that show moderate. Table 4. Evaluation of Cognitive attitudes to use of Family Planning Methods among Women (N=198). List Causes Mean Evaluation 1 I think that a woman who uses contraceptive methods has enough time to take care of herself and her husband instead of wasting time on a large number of children. 2.90 High 2 I encourage my friends to use contraceptives. 2.62 High 3 It is no trouble to use contraceptives. 2.95 High 4 Using contraceptives is much more desirable than having an abortion. 2.95 High 5 I think that contraceptive methods make my life more stable. 2.75 High 6 I think that if I do not use family planning methods I will have a large number of children and will not get their right to breastfeed and care. 2.73 High 7 I think my overall health would decline as a result of the variety and proximity of births if I do not use contraception methods. 2.67 High 8 I think that the natural method (method of calculation) is effective in family planning. 2.24 Moderate 9 I think pills are effective at family planning. 2.66 High 10 I think contraceptive injection is effective at family planning. 2.24 Moderate 11 I think using an IUD is an effective method of family planning. 2.45 High 12 I think implantation is good for family planning. 2.11 Moderate 13 I think that it is possible to rely on the husband for use of contraceptive. 2.49 High 14 I think it is better to have a tubal ligation to prevent childbearing. 1.92 Moderate 15 I think that contraceptive methods maintain my reproductive health. 2.49 High 16 I think it is wrong to use contraceptive methods because they place restrictions on couples. 2.64 High 17 I think there are no integrated contraceptive methods that provide 100% pregnancy protection. 2.38 High 18 I think that contraceptive methods are against the teachings of Islam. 2.54 High 19 I think contraceptives are difficult to obtain. 2.69 High 20 I think contraceptives reduce the sex drive. 2.47 High 21 I think that contraceptive methods are costly. 2.68 High 22 I think Contraceptives weaken the marital relation. 2.69 High Total Grand mean 2.56 High Figure 1 shows that women are showing a good level of attitude toward using of family planning methods (78.7%), (20.6%) of them are showing a fair level of attitude, while only one woman showing a poor level of attitude (0.7%). Figure 1. Levels of Women’s Attitude toward using of family planning Methods (N=150). Figure 2 illustrates that (86.7%) of women are using various family planning methods while only (13.3%) are not using these contraceptive methods. Figure 2. Distribution of Women according to Use of family planning Methods (N=198). Discussion Total grand mean = 2.60 indicates that women have a high affective attitudes to using family planning methods; mean scores are high for most affective attitudes, with the exception of (Contraceptives can actually make intercourse seem more pleasurable) and (Contraceptives are not really necessary unless a couple has engaged in intercourse more than once) that show moderate. Middle Eastern women face several potential barriers that can negatively influence their use of family planning methods. These barriers include affective, behavioral, and cognitive factors, each impacting the process in different ways. Key influences on these barriers were identified as the level of understanding of family planning, support from others (such as husbands, society, and friends), adherence to cultural and social norms, and the perceived priority given to family planning. Despite the challenges that family planning still faces across the Middle East, many governments and civil society organizations are actively working to improve access to services, promote reproductive health education, and encourage open discussions within local communities. Approximately 17% of married women worldwide, or over 100 million women in less developed countries, would prefer not to get pregnant but are not utilizing family planning. Unwanted or pregnancies might result from unmet contraceptive needs. Which puts women, their families, and society at risks. Approximately 25% of pregnancies in less developed countries are unplanned. 29 Challenges pertaining to reproduction can occasionally exist, such as (lack of sexual activity or prolonged intervals between sexual activity, fear of contraceptive side effects including bleeding, spotting, amenorrhea, or incidence of breast tumors or any other gynecological oncology). Furthermore, some women choose not to use contraceptives because they believe that they are not truly necessary until a couple has had multiple sexual encounters. This is especially true for women whose husbands work outside the home for a several days. The involvement of the husband frequently has a detrimental impact on women’s decisions to use or not use family planning methods. Instead, it pushes women to have a large number of children, particularly in rural countries where a large family is seen as a source of strength and pride for the father. In many cases the role of husband is negatively affected women’s decisions about use or abstain family planning methods. Rather the forces the women to have a lot of children, especially in rural societies that believe that the large number of children is a source of proud and strength for the father. The population of Iraq has grown at an average yearly growth rate of 3% over the past three decades. 30 Which, together with Yemen and Palestine, is regarded as one of the highest in the Region. 31 At the moment, 70% of people reside in cities. 32 Women in their twenties of the overall population, 20% are between the ages of 15 and 49. 33 With 22% of the population living below the federal poverty line and a comparatively high maternal mortality rate (50 deaths per 100,000 live births), poverty and unemployment are still high. There are disparities as well: the poverty rate doubles in rural areas, 22% of women are illiterate, and only 10% of the workforce is made up of women. 34 Women have high behavioral attitudes to uses of family planning methods (total grand mean= 2.56); the mean scores indicate high among most of behavioral attitudes except (After a sudden intercourse, I use an emergency contraceptive method to prevent pregnancy), (I would practice contraception even if my partner did not want me to) and (I prefer that my husband be receptive to the responsibility of using contraceptive methods) that show moderate. Family planning service utilization decisions are influenced by a variety of service-related and demographic constraints. By comprehending and utilizing data on unmet need, policymakers and program managers can enhance family planning initiatives. Taking into account the traits of women and couples with unfulfilled needs and trying to remove barriers that keep them from selecting and utilizing family planning techniques. 35 Sometimes the desire for the most effective methods creates barriers that prevent women from using family planning methods successfully, these barriers include the method’s induction of serious side effects, such as severe headaches, severe depression, severe bleeding, and extreme pain in the chest or abdomen. Some women also prefer natural methods because they think they are safe and effective, and some women avoid family planning methods because they are religiously prohibited from doing so or because they cannot access them cost free, and many of them are low-income. Together, these barriers force women to have unintended pregnancies, large families with lots of children, and sick mothers who are forced to care for their large families. Concerning attitudes related to cognitive the study shows that women have high cognitive attitudes to uses family planning methods (total grand mean = 2.56); the mean scores indicate high among most of cognitive attitudes except (I think that the natural method is effective in family planning), (I think implantation is good for family planning) and (I think it is better to have a tubal ligation to prevent childbearing) that show moderate. In order to stabilize the global population, it is necessary to remove barriers that prevent all women from accessing high-quality contraceptive and family planning services. Prior studies on the obstacles to using FP services have emphasized the significance of focusing on factors other than physical access when analyzing obstacles resulting from administrative, cognitive, emotional, and cultural elements in addition to physical obstacles and method-specific obstacles. 36 There are various types of reported barriers for both the discontinued group and the non-users. Cognitive, cultural and demographic barriers were the main barriers that lead to not using/discontinuation of family planning methods followed by barriers related to the method itself and reproductive barriers. The administrative and physical barriers were the least reported ones. 37 – 39 In addition to social, cultural, and economic restrictions, Middle Eastern women continue to confront other obstacles in their quest for family planning services. This piece emphasizes the urgent necessity to remove these obstacles by disseminating promotional messaging. Providing counseling to women, particularly during postpartum visits, in order to dispel myths and assist them in making an informed decision. Providers in these fields should keep a variety of contraceptives on hand as well as offer counseling to help women and couples meet their contraceptive needs. This will allow women to select the methods that best suits their needs. Postpartum, breastfeeding, and menopausal women should receive counseling regarding their risk of getting pregnant, how to satisfy their family planning needs, and how to raise money to cover gaps in government programs. Governments can improve individual rights, growth population, and accomplish development goals particularly MDG 5, which calls for improved maternal health by reducing the unmet demand for family planning. 6 , 40 , 41 Conclusions The findings of the study revealed that the majority of participating women held positive attitudes toward family planning methods. Furthermore, most of the women reported actively using some form of contraception. These results highlight a generally favorable perception and widespread acceptance of family planning practices among Middle Eastern women, reflecting both awareness and practical engagement in reproductive health decisions. Ethics and consent The ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) in College of Nursing at University of Baghdad with a reference number 8 in 16 January, 2024. All participants provided informed written consent to participate in the study. The researcher informed the women about their rights of voluntarily participation, withdraw at any time, confidentiality, and privacy. Women who agreed to participate were asked to sign the consent form. Study ethical considerations including the nature and aims of the study, voluntary participation, the right to withdraw from participation, the protection of confidentiality and privacy of the informants, the use and publication of the study results, the storage of data, and benefits of the study were explained in writing to candidates. This information was conveyed in the human ethics application form. It was also verbally reinforced before the conduction of the interview. CRediT authorship contribution statement Hawraa Hussein Ghafel: Writing – original draft, Supervision, Resources, Project administration, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Data curation, Conceptualization. Data availability Underlying data Figshare: Understanding of Middle East Women’s Decisions and barriers to use Family Planning Methods, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26355775 42 This project contains the following extended data: • Data Data.xlsx Extended data Figshare: Questionnaires, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26355694 43 This project contains the following extended data: • Questionnaire in the English language Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). Acknowledgments The author appreciate the efforts and dedication of a Professor Dr. Sadeq Abdul Hussein Hassan, a professor Dr. Qahtan Qassem Mohammed (faculty members at College of Nursing, University of Baghdad) for their help. Without the women’s cooperation and assistance, the data could not have been gathered. The author greatly value their participation and cooperation. References 1. UNFPA: women’s need for family planning in Arab countries.2012. Reference Source 2. Roudi-Fahimi F, Monem AA: Unintended Pregnancies in the Middle East and North Africa. Washington, DC: PRB; 2010. 3. Jacqueline E: Darroch, Gilda Sedgh, and Haley Ball, Contraceptive Technologies: Responding to Women’s Needs. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2011. 4. Rida MK, Ghafel HH: Correlation between Women’s Attitudes and Abstain (Used/Unused) Contraceptive Methods at Primary Health Care Centers in Baghdad City. Indian J. Forensic. Med. Toxicol. 2020; 15 (1): 2309–2313. Publisher Full Text 5. Anbesu EW, Aychiluhm SB, Alemayehu M: Women’s decisions regarding family planning use and its determinants in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. PLoS One. 2022 Oct 13; 17 (10): e0276128. Publisher Full Text 6. Alrawi Y: Exploring barriers to family planning service utilization and uptake among women in Iraq. East Mediterr. Health J. 2021 Aug 26; 27 (8): 818–825. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 7. Böttcher B, Abu-El-Noor M, Abu-El-Noor N: Choices and services related to contraception in the Gaza strip, Palestine: perceptions of service users and providers. BMC Womens Health. 2019 Dec 19; 19 (1): 165. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 8. Wulandari RD, Laksono AD, Matahari R: The Barrier to Contraceptive Use among Multiparous Women in Indonesia. Indian J. Community Med. 2021 Jul-Sep; 46 (3): 479–483. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 9. Laksono AD, Rohmah N, Megatsari H: Barriers for multiparous women to using long-term contraceptive methods in Southeast Asia: case study in Philippines and Indonesia. BMC Public Health. 2022 Jul 27; 22 (1): 1425. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 10. Haraoui S: Overcoming Barriers to Family Planning in the Middle East:FP2030.2024. Reference Source 11. Ghafel HH: Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic upon Iraqi women’s Commitment to Family Planning at Primary Health Care Centers in Baghdad City. J. Contemp. Med. Sci 2024; 10 (2). Publisher Full Text 12. Ghafel HH: Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic upon Iraqi women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health at Primary Health Care Centers. J. Contemp. Med. Sci. 2023; 9 (4): 255–261. Publisher Full Text 13. WHO et al. : Trends in Maternal Mortality: 1990 to 2010: Estimates Developed by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, and the World Bank 14. World Resources Institute: Earth Trends Data Tables: May 8, 2012 Freshwater Resources Reference Source 15. Special tabulations by Sara Bradley, ICF Macro, using the 2008 Egypt DHS. 16. Bradley SEK, Croft TN, Rutstein SO: The Impact of Contraceptive Failure on Unintended Births and Induced Abortions: Estimates and Strategies for Reduction. DHS Analytical Studies. 2011; 22 . 17. Higher Population Council, Reducing Discontinuation of Contraceptive Use and Unmet Need for Family Planning (Amman, Jordan: Higher Population Council, 2011): table 3 May 16, 2012. Reference Source 18. Alselmi A: Family planning unmet need among women attending primary healthcare clinics in Western Region, Saudi Arabia. J. Family Med. Prim. Care. 2023 Jul; 12 (7): 1276–1284. Epub 2023 Jul 14. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 19. Mahfouz MS, Elmahdy M, Ryani MA, et al. : Contraceptive Use and the Associated Factors among Women of Reproductive Age in Jazan City, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2023 Jan 2; 20 (1): 843. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 20. Alkalash SH, Alessi SM, Alrizqi AA, et al. : Knowledge on, Attitude Toward, and Practice of Contraceptive Methods Among Females of Reproductive Age in Al-Qunfudah Governorate, Saudi Arabia. Cureus. 2023 Mar 23; 15 (3): e36606. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 21. Alsharif SS, Abu Saeed RI, Alskhairi RF, et al. : Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Contraception Use Among Childbearing Women in Makkah Region, Saudi Arabia. Cureus. 2023 Feb 10; 15 (2): e34848. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 22. Sammouri J, Khachfe HH, Fares MY, et al. : Deliveries in Lebanon, the Country with the Highest Refugee Density in the World: A Descriptive Review. Matern. Child Health J. 2024 Apr; 28 (4): 601–608. Epub 2023 Nov 18. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 23. Fischbach MR: Spotlight: Lebanon. Popul Today. 1998 Jul-Aug; 26 (7-8): 7. PubMed Abstract Reference Source 24. Darroch JE, Sedgh G, Ball H: Contraceptive Technologies: Responding to Women’s Needs. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2011. 25. Roudi-Fahimi F, Monem AA: Unintended Pregnancies in the Middle East and North Africa. Washington, DC: PRB; 2010. 26. United Nations Population Fund: Human Rights: 2012. The Foundation for UNFPA’s Work Reference Source 27. Raosoft: Sample size calculator.2004. Reference Source 28. Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS- version 24.0). http 29. Ashford L: Unmet need for family planning: 2012. Recent trends and their implications for programs. Washington DC: Population Reference Bureau. Reference Source 30. World population dashboard. New York: United Nations Population Fund; 2019. Reference Source 31. Roudi F, Monem AA, Ashford A, et al. : Women’s need for family planning in Arab countries. New York: United Nations Population Fund, Population Reference Bureau; 2012; 1–8. 32. Iraq urban population. New York: Trading Economics; 2016. Reference Source 33. Iraq: Virginia: The World Factbook.2019. Reference Source 34. Country cooperation strategy for WHO and Iraq. Cairo: World Health Organization; 2013. 35. Elzanaty K, Way A: Egypt Demographic and Health Survey. Cairo, Egypt: Ministry of Health and Population, National Population Council; 2005. 36. Elzanaty K, Way A: Egypt demographic and health survey. Cairo, Egypt: Ministry of Health and Population, National Population Council; 2005. 37. Eltomy EM, Saboula NE, Hussein AA: Barriers affecting utilization of family planning services among rural Egyptian women. WHO; 2013. Reference Source 38. Evaluation of Women’s knowledge about Family Planning Methods at Omer Sawi Teaching Hospital. Iraqi National Journal of Nursing Specialties. 2023; 36 (1): 49–58. Publisher Full Text 39. Factors Affecting Birth Space Interval of Women Who Are Attending Primary Health Care Centers. Iraqi National Journal of Nursing Specialties. 2010; 23 (2): 34–41. Publisher Full Text 40. Factors Affecting Birth Space Interval of Women Who Are Attending Primary Health Care Centers. Iraqi National Journal of Nursing Specialties. 2010; 23 (2): 34–41. Publisher Full Text 41. Bapolisi WA, Bisimwa G, Merten S: Barriers to family planning use in the Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo: an application of the theory of planned behaviour using a longitudinal survey. BMJ Open. 2023 Feb 10; 13 (2): e061564. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 42. Ghafel HH: Understanding of middle east women’s decisions and barriers to use family planning. Dataset. figshare. 2024. Publisher Full Text 43. Ghafel HH: Questionnaires. Dataset. figshare. 2024. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (1) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 16 Jul 2025 Revised Comment ADD YOUR COMMENT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 06 Aug 2024 Discussion is closed on this version, please comment on the latest version above. Reader Comment 23 Aug 2024 Resti Tito Villarino , Local Research Ethics Committee, Cebu Technological University, Cebu City, Philippines 23 Aug 2024 Reader Comment 1. Title and Abstract: The title adequately reflects the study's content. However, it could be more specific by mentioning the countries involved and the types of barriers examined. ... Continue reading 1. Title and Abstract: The title adequately reflects the study's content. However, it could be more specific by mentioning the countries involved and the types of barriers examined. The abstract provides a concise overview of the study but could be improved by: Specifying the six Arabic countries in the methodology section Including more quantitative results (e.g., percentages for each type of barrier) Elaborating on the implications of the findings 2. Introduction: Areas for improvement: The literature review lacks depth and critical analysis of existing research. Many references are outdated (pre-2020). The research gap and rationale for this specific study are not clearly articulated. There is no clear theoretical framework presented. 3. Methods: Areas for improvement: More details are needed on the development and validation of the questionnaire. There is a lack of information on how the questionnaire was translated (if applicable) and culturally adapted for different countries. There is no mention of potential confounding variables or how they were controlled for Limited information on data analysis techniques beyond descriptive statistics 4. Results: Areas for improvement: Lack of inferential statistics to explore relationships between variables. There is no comparison of results between the six countries studied. Limited analysis of how demographic factors relate to the barriers identified. Some tables could be simplified or combined for better readability. 5. Discussion: Areas for improvement: Limited critical analysis of the study's findings. Insufficient comparison with previous research findings. There is a lack of discussion on how the identified barriers might be addressed. No clear discussion of the study's limitations. Implications for policy and practice are not thoroughly explored. 6. Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the main findings but is relatively brief and general. It could be improved by: Providing more specific conclusions related to each type of barrier. Offering concrete recommendations based on the findings. Suggesting directions for future research. Overall comments: This study addresses an important topic in reproductive health in the Middle East. However, there are several areas where the manuscript could be substantially improved: The introduction needs a more comprehensive and up-to-date literature review, a clearer articulation of the research gap, and a theoretical framework. The methods section should detail questionnaire development, validation, and cultural adaptation. The results section would benefit from more advanced statistical analyses, including comparisons between countries and exploring relationships between variables. The discussion needs more critical analysis, thorough comparison with existing literature, and exploration of implications. The conclusion should offer more specific insights and recommendations based on the findings. Throughout the paper, some grammatical and structural issues should be addressed to improve clarity and readability. 1. Title and Abstract: The title adequately reflects the study's content. However, it could be more specific by mentioning the countries involved and the types of barriers examined. The abstract provides a concise overview of the study but could be improved by: Specifying the six Arabic countries in the methodology section Including more quantitative results (e.g., percentages for each type of barrier) Elaborating on the implications of the findings 2. Introduction: Areas for improvement: The literature review lacks depth and critical analysis of existing research. Many references are outdated (pre-2020). The research gap and rationale for this specific study are not clearly articulated. There is no clear theoretical framework presented. 3. Methods: Areas for improvement: More details are needed on the development and validation of the questionnaire. There is a lack of information on how the questionnaire was translated (if applicable) and culturally adapted for different countries. There is no mention of potential confounding variables or how they were controlled for Limited information on data analysis techniques beyond descriptive statistics 4. Results: Areas for improvement: Lack of inferential statistics to explore relationships between variables. There is no comparison of results between the six countries studied. Limited analysis of how demographic factors relate to the barriers identified. Some tables could be simplified or combined for better readability. 5. Discussion: Areas for improvement: Limited critical analysis of the study's findings. Insufficient comparison with previous research findings. There is a lack of discussion on how the identified barriers might be addressed. No clear discussion of the study's limitations. Implications for policy and practice are not thoroughly explored. 6. Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the main findings but is relatively brief and general. It could be improved by: Providing more specific conclusions related to each type of barrier. Offering concrete recommendations based on the findings. Suggesting directions for future research. Overall comments: This study addresses an important topic in reproductive health in the Middle East. However, there are several areas where the manuscript could be substantially improved: The introduction needs a more comprehensive and up-to-date literature review, a clearer articulation of the research gap, and a theoretical framework. The methods section should detail questionnaire development, validation, and cultural adaptation. The results section would benefit from more advanced statistical analyses, including comparisons between countries and exploring relationships between variables. The discussion needs more critical analysis, thorough comparison with existing literature, and exploration of implications. The conclusion should offer more specific insights and recommendations based on the findings. Throughout the paper, some grammatical and structural issues should be addressed to improve clarity and readability. Competing Interests: None declared. Close Report a concern Discussion is closed on this version, please comment on the latest version above. Author details Author details Doctor in Maternal and Neonate Nursing Department, College of Nursing, University of Baghdad, Bab Al-Mua’adham, Baghdad City, 10011, Iraq Hawraa Hussein Ghafel Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 16 Jul 2025, 13:898 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154232.2 version 1 Published: 06 Aug 2024, 13:898 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154232.1 Copyright © 2025 Ghafel HH. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Ghafel HH. Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 4 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154232.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 16 Jul 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Shrestha B. Reviewer Report For: Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 4 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183462.r415843 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v2#referee-response-415843 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 13 Oct 2025 Bidhya Shrestha , Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Kathmandu, Nepal Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183462.r415843 - Provides a broad overview of the importance of family planning in health and development. The literature review is not sufficiently critical or current; many references are outdated (pre-2020). For example, missing SDGs. What about the 2014 Egypt DHS? - ... Continue reading READ ALL - Provides a broad overview of the importance of family planning in health and development. The literature review is not sufficiently critical or current; many references are outdated (pre-2020). For example, missing SDGs. What about the 2014 Egypt DHS? - Expand and update the literature review. - Fertility rate-based justification, which strengthens the study’s scope. - The inclusion of six Arab countries provides regional diversity, which is valuable for comparative insights. -Use of Google Forms assumes digital literacy and internet access. This may have excluded illiterate women or those without internet access, introducing selection bias. It is recommended to acknowledge this limitation and clarify whether assistance was provided during data collection. - The conclusion does not reflect the three attitude domains (effective, behavioral, cognitive) that were central to the study. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: The study is significant for its regional focus and fertility-based country selection, offering valuable insights into reproductive health behaviors. With revisions to improve methodological clarity, analytical rigor, and framing of conclusions, it can be a strong contribution to both academic literature and teaching. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Shrestha B. Reviewer Report For: Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 4 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183462.r415843 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v2#referee-response-415843 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Mathews C. Reviewer Report For: Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 4 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183462.r412541 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v2#referee-response-412541 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 11 Sep 2025 Catherine Mathews , Health Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa; University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183462.r412541 The purpose of this study is to explore the attitudes of women in middle Eastern countries towards family planning, and to identify their practices related to family planning. In addition, the authors set out to examine the association between attitudes ... Continue reading READ ALL The purpose of this study is to explore the attitudes of women in middle Eastern countries towards family planning, and to identify their practices related to family planning. In addition, the authors set out to examine the association between attitudes and practices. There are important research questions. One of the main and most serious limitations of the study is that the sampling was purposive and "non probability". Furthermore, the authors do not describe how the women were sampled, and how the primary healthcare centers were sampled. Therefore, the authors ability to provide data related to the study purpose is undermined and the findings cannot be said to represent the attitudes and behaviour of "Middle Eastern woman". There is no ability to compare sub-groups, and this is another major limitation. The authors do not examine the association between attitudes and practices, and therefore one of the purposes of the study is not met. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Health systems research related to sexual and reproductive health I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Mathews C. Reviewer Report For: Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 4 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183462.r412541 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v2#referee-response-412541 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Tsui AO. Reviewer Report For: Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 4 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183462.r398761 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v2#referee-response-398761 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 25 Aug 2025 Amy O Tsui , Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183462.r398761 The author appears to have made a genuine effort to try to respond to 3 sets of criticisms but the paper still falls short of what I consider the standards of scientific publication. There is no hypothesis being tested, the ... Continue reading READ ALL The author appears to have made a genuine effort to try to respond to 3 sets of criticisms but the paper still falls short of what I consider the standards of scientific publication. There is no hypothesis being tested, the three attitude sets have minimal variation (nearly all statements are classified in the high range and none in the low range) and none are examined for their relationship to contraceptive use. The sample recruitment leans heavily toward well educated women which limits observation of a full variation in supposed barriers to adoption. Current use at 86.7% among the sample is practically-speaking very high. Although the sample of 198 women are drawn from 6 Middle Eastern countries, there is no statistical basis to analyze variation among the sites. That the analysis does not even endeavor to investigate the associations between the affective, behavioral and cognitive barrier measures with contraceptive practice is baffling. Last a Likert scale involves more than 3 choice/response points, it usually involves 5 or 7 points and can be as many as 10. Having just 3 response choices limits variation that can enable scale development and construction. A final if minor point--the abstract refers to using the R package for analysis and the main text cites using SPSS. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Reproductive health I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Tsui AO. Reviewer Report For: Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 4 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183462.r398761 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v2#referee-response-398761 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 06 Aug 2024 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Friedland B. Reviewer Report For: Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 4 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169229.r367544 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v1#referee-response-367544 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 02 Apr 2025 Barbara Friedland , Center for Biomedical Research, Population Council, New York, New York, USA Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169229.r367544 The article is about barriers to contraception based on a cross-sectional survey implemented in 6 countries. Women responded to a survey with a 3-point Likert scale measuring attitudes and behaviors related to contraception. However, the survey instrument is problematic as ... Continue reading READ ALL The article is about barriers to contraception based on a cross-sectional survey implemented in 6 countries. Women responded to a survey with a 3-point Likert scale measuring attitudes and behaviors related to contraception. However, the survey instrument is problematic as presented: - if the survey is meant to be a scale, it is unclear how the items were developed, tested, validated, etc. - there are multiple overlapping items between the 3 domains in the survey/scale - items are not all framed in the same direction; for some items, a 3 -- "always" -- would be a positive response whereas for other items a 1 or "never" would be a positive response. Because of this, it is not possible to arrive at mean scores that represent an overall positive or negative attitude or experience related to contraception. Therefore, the article does not make a compelling case that there are barriers to contraceptive use. Other concerns that are less critical are: It is unclear why the 6 countries were chosen -- what do they have in common? What is different among them? It would be helpful to understand why this specific set of 6 countries was included. The title indicated that the study was focused on barriers to contraceptive use, but "unmet need" is only applicable to people who do not want to become pregnant yet are not doing anything to prevent pregnancy. It is unclear if all women in the study did not want to get pregnant. The sample size is not adequately explained -- what is the outcome that the sample size was based upon? Regardless of outcomes, 198 women across 6 countries is a very small sample upon which to base any conclusions. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: I am researcher based at an international non-profit institution with a masters in public health conducting clinical and behavioral research. I have expertise in developing and implementing surveys, including scales for measuring latent constructs. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Friedland B. Reviewer Report For: Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 4 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169229.r367544 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v1#referee-response-367544 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 23 Aug 2025 Hawraa Ghafel , Doctor in Maternal and Neonate Nursing Department, College of Nursing, University of Baghdad, Bab Al-Mua’adham, 10011, Iraq 23 Aug 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and valuable feedback on my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate your careful review and constructive suggestions, which have significantly contributed to enhancing ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and valuable feedback on my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate your careful review and constructive suggestions, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the clarity and rigor of the revised version. Please find below my responses to the issues you raised: 1. Survey instrument development and validation I fully acknowledge the concerns regarding the survey tool. In the revised manuscript, I have included a detailed explanation of the item development process, which was informed by a review of relevant literature and pre-tested in two countries to ensure clarity and cultural appropriateness. I have also clarified the steps taken to ensure content validity, and while full psychometric validation was not feasible due to sample size limitations, I have transparently acknowledged this limitation and its implications for interpretation. 2. Overlapping and inconsistent item framing Thank you for pointing out the issue of overlapping items and inconsistent directionality. I have carefully reviewed the entire set of items across the three domains and made revisions to remove redundancy and ensure greater consistency in how the items are framed. Furthermore, I clarified in the methods section that items with reversed scoring were re-coded appropriately during the analysis phase. I also addressed the limitations of relying on mean scores in the discussion, and emphasized that the results should be interpreted as indicative of patterns rather than definitive measures of attitude strength. 3. Justification for country selection In selecting the countries included in this study, a purposive sampling strategy was employed to ensure a diverse yet representative understanding of attitudes and practices toward family planning among Middle Eastern women. Six Arab countries were chosen: Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, and Yemen. The selection was primarily based on fertility rate indicators , as reported by recent demographic and health data. Countries with high fertility rates , such as Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, were prioritized to explore potential gaps in family planning awareness and utilization. Jordan and Lebanon were included to provide comparative insights from countries with relatively lower fertility rates but similar cultural and regional contexts. This combination allows the study to capture a broader spectrum of experiences and challenges, offering a more nuanced understanding of family planning behaviors across varying socio-economic and demographic profiles within the Arab world. 4. Clarity on "unmet need" Thank you for raising this important distinction. I have clarified in the revised text that while the study explores the attitudes and practice, it does not exclusively focus on women with an "unmet need" as defined by demographic health surveys. This distinction has now been made explicit, and references to "unmet need" have been revised or removed to avoid confusion. 5. Sample size explanation I have expanded the description of the sample size estimation, specifying the assumptions used (including estimated proportion and confidence level), and acknowledged the limitations of the small, purposive sample. As noted, while the total number of 198 women across six countries limits the generalizability of the findings, the study is intended as an exploratory effort to identify patterns and guide future, larger-scale research. Once again, I truly appreciate your careful critique. Your comments were extremely helpful in refining the methodology and strengthening the manuscript overall. I hope the revisions adequately address your concerns. Kind regards, Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and valuable feedback on my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate your careful review and constructive suggestions, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the clarity and rigor of the revised version. Please find below my responses to the issues you raised: 1. Survey instrument development and validation I fully acknowledge the concerns regarding the survey tool. In the revised manuscript, I have included a detailed explanation of the item development process, which was informed by a review of relevant literature and pre-tested in two countries to ensure clarity and cultural appropriateness. I have also clarified the steps taken to ensure content validity, and while full psychometric validation was not feasible due to sample size limitations, I have transparently acknowledged this limitation and its implications for interpretation. 2. Overlapping and inconsistent item framing Thank you for pointing out the issue of overlapping items and inconsistent directionality. I have carefully reviewed the entire set of items across the three domains and made revisions to remove redundancy and ensure greater consistency in how the items are framed. Furthermore, I clarified in the methods section that items with reversed scoring were re-coded appropriately during the analysis phase. I also addressed the limitations of relying on mean scores in the discussion, and emphasized that the results should be interpreted as indicative of patterns rather than definitive measures of attitude strength. 3. Justification for country selection In selecting the countries included in this study, a purposive sampling strategy was employed to ensure a diverse yet representative understanding of attitudes and practices toward family planning among Middle Eastern women. Six Arab countries were chosen: Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, and Yemen. The selection was primarily based on fertility rate indicators , as reported by recent demographic and health data. Countries with high fertility rates , such as Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, were prioritized to explore potential gaps in family planning awareness and utilization. Jordan and Lebanon were included to provide comparative insights from countries with relatively lower fertility rates but similar cultural and regional contexts. This combination allows the study to capture a broader spectrum of experiences and challenges, offering a more nuanced understanding of family planning behaviors across varying socio-economic and demographic profiles within the Arab world. 4. Clarity on "unmet need" Thank you for raising this important distinction. I have clarified in the revised text that while the study explores the attitudes and practice, it does not exclusively focus on women with an "unmet need" as defined by demographic health surveys. This distinction has now been made explicit, and references to "unmet need" have been revised or removed to avoid confusion. 5. Sample size explanation I have expanded the description of the sample size estimation, specifying the assumptions used (including estimated proportion and confidence level), and acknowledged the limitations of the small, purposive sample. As noted, while the total number of 198 women across six countries limits the generalizability of the findings, the study is intended as an exploratory effort to identify patterns and guide future, larger-scale research. Once again, I truly appreciate your careful critique. Your comments were extremely helpful in refining the methodology and strengthening the manuscript overall. I hope the revisions adequately address your concerns. Kind regards, Competing Interests: i have no any competing interest Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 23 Aug 2025 Hawraa Ghafel , Doctor in Maternal and Neonate Nursing Department, College of Nursing, University of Baghdad, Bab Al-Mua’adham, 10011, Iraq 23 Aug 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and valuable feedback on my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate your careful review and constructive suggestions, which have significantly contributed to enhancing ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and valuable feedback on my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate your careful review and constructive suggestions, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the clarity and rigor of the revised version. Please find below my responses to the issues you raised: 1. Survey instrument development and validation I fully acknowledge the concerns regarding the survey tool. In the revised manuscript, I have included a detailed explanation of the item development process, which was informed by a review of relevant literature and pre-tested in two countries to ensure clarity and cultural appropriateness. I have also clarified the steps taken to ensure content validity, and while full psychometric validation was not feasible due to sample size limitations, I have transparently acknowledged this limitation and its implications for interpretation. 2. Overlapping and inconsistent item framing Thank you for pointing out the issue of overlapping items and inconsistent directionality. I have carefully reviewed the entire set of items across the three domains and made revisions to remove redundancy and ensure greater consistency in how the items are framed. Furthermore, I clarified in the methods section that items with reversed scoring were re-coded appropriately during the analysis phase. I also addressed the limitations of relying on mean scores in the discussion, and emphasized that the results should be interpreted as indicative of patterns rather than definitive measures of attitude strength. 3. Justification for country selection In selecting the countries included in this study, a purposive sampling strategy was employed to ensure a diverse yet representative understanding of attitudes and practices toward family planning among Middle Eastern women. Six Arab countries were chosen: Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, and Yemen. The selection was primarily based on fertility rate indicators , as reported by recent demographic and health data. Countries with high fertility rates , such as Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, were prioritized to explore potential gaps in family planning awareness and utilization. Jordan and Lebanon were included to provide comparative insights from countries with relatively lower fertility rates but similar cultural and regional contexts. This combination allows the study to capture a broader spectrum of experiences and challenges, offering a more nuanced understanding of family planning behaviors across varying socio-economic and demographic profiles within the Arab world. 4. Clarity on "unmet need" Thank you for raising this important distinction. I have clarified in the revised text that while the study explores the attitudes and practice, it does not exclusively focus on women with an "unmet need" as defined by demographic health surveys. This distinction has now been made explicit, and references to "unmet need" have been revised or removed to avoid confusion. 5. Sample size explanation I have expanded the description of the sample size estimation, specifying the assumptions used (including estimated proportion and confidence level), and acknowledged the limitations of the small, purposive sample. As noted, while the total number of 198 women across six countries limits the generalizability of the findings, the study is intended as an exploratory effort to identify patterns and guide future, larger-scale research. Once again, I truly appreciate your careful critique. Your comments were extremely helpful in refining the methodology and strengthening the manuscript overall. I hope the revisions adequately address your concerns. Kind regards, Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and valuable feedback on my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate your careful review and constructive suggestions, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the clarity and rigor of the revised version. Please find below my responses to the issues you raised: 1. Survey instrument development and validation I fully acknowledge the concerns regarding the survey tool. In the revised manuscript, I have included a detailed explanation of the item development process, which was informed by a review of relevant literature and pre-tested in two countries to ensure clarity and cultural appropriateness. I have also clarified the steps taken to ensure content validity, and while full psychometric validation was not feasible due to sample size limitations, I have transparently acknowledged this limitation and its implications for interpretation. 2. Overlapping and inconsistent item framing Thank you for pointing out the issue of overlapping items and inconsistent directionality. I have carefully reviewed the entire set of items across the three domains and made revisions to remove redundancy and ensure greater consistency in how the items are framed. Furthermore, I clarified in the methods section that items with reversed scoring were re-coded appropriately during the analysis phase. I also addressed the limitations of relying on mean scores in the discussion, and emphasized that the results should be interpreted as indicative of patterns rather than definitive measures of attitude strength. 3. Justification for country selection In selecting the countries included in this study, a purposive sampling strategy was employed to ensure a diverse yet representative understanding of attitudes and practices toward family planning among Middle Eastern women. Six Arab countries were chosen: Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, and Yemen. The selection was primarily based on fertility rate indicators , as reported by recent demographic and health data. Countries with high fertility rates , such as Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, were prioritized to explore potential gaps in family planning awareness and utilization. Jordan and Lebanon were included to provide comparative insights from countries with relatively lower fertility rates but similar cultural and regional contexts. This combination allows the study to capture a broader spectrum of experiences and challenges, offering a more nuanced understanding of family planning behaviors across varying socio-economic and demographic profiles within the Arab world. 4. Clarity on "unmet need" Thank you for raising this important distinction. I have clarified in the revised text that while the study explores the attitudes and practice, it does not exclusively focus on women with an "unmet need" as defined by demographic health surveys. This distinction has now been made explicit, and references to "unmet need" have been revised or removed to avoid confusion. 5. Sample size explanation I have expanded the description of the sample size estimation, specifying the assumptions used (including estimated proportion and confidence level), and acknowledged the limitations of the small, purposive sample. As noted, while the total number of 198 women across six countries limits the generalizability of the findings, the study is intended as an exploratory effort to identify patterns and guide future, larger-scale research. Once again, I truly appreciate your careful critique. Your comments were extremely helpful in refining the methodology and strengthening the manuscript overall. I hope the revisions adequately address your concerns. Kind regards, Competing Interests: i have no any competing interest Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Osborne A. Reviewer Report For: Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 4 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169229.r367545 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v1#referee-response-367545 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 20 Feb 2025 Augustus Osborne , Njala University, Freetown, Sierra Leone Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169229.r367545 Peer Review Report Manuscript Title: Understanding of Middle East Women’s Decisions and Barriers to Use Family Planning Methods This manuscript addresses a critical and timely issue in reproductive health, focusing on the cognitive, affective, and behavioral barriers faced ... Continue reading READ ALL Peer Review Report Manuscript Title: Understanding of Middle East Women’s Decisions and Barriers to Use Family Planning Methods This manuscript addresses a critical and timely issue in reproductive health, focusing on the cognitive, affective, and behavioral barriers faced by women in six Middle Eastern countries when making decisions about family planning. While the study has the potential to contribute to the understanding of family planning challenges in the region, there are significant gaps in the methodology, analysis, and presentation of findings that need to be addressed to improve its scientific rigor and clarity. 1. Abstract - Specify the six countries included in the study in the methodology section of the abstract. - Include key quantitative results (e.g., percentages of women experiencing each type of barrier). - Elaborate on the implications of the findings, particularly for policy and practice. 2. Introduction - The literature review lacks depth and critical engagement with recent studies, with many references predating 2020. - The rationale for selecting the six countries (Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia) is not explained. - There is no clear theoretical framework to support the categorization of barriers into cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains. Introduce a theoretical framework to define and support the categorization of barriers into cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains. 3. Methodology - The sample size (198 women) is small and not representative of the diverse populations in the six countries. - The use of a non-probability purposive sampling method limits the generalizability of the findings. - The questionnaire's development, validation, and cultural adaptation are not adequately detailed. - The use of a 3-point Likert scale is insufficient to capture nuanced responses and limits the depth of analysis. - Confounding variables (e.g., socioeconomic status, urban/rural residence) are not addressed. 4. Results - The analysis is limited to descriptive statistics, with no inferential statistics to explore relationships between variables or compare results across countries. - The presentation of results is repetitive, with little synthesis or interpretation. - There is no analysis of how demographic factors (e.g., age, education, nationality) relate to the identified barriers. - Include inferential statistics (e.g., chi-square tests, regression analysis) to explore relationships between variables and compare results across countries. - Synthesize the findings to provide a clearer narrative rather than listing results without interpretation. - Analyze how demographic factors (e.g., age, education, nationality) influence the barriers identified. 5. Discussion - The discussion lacks critical analysis and comparison with existing literature. - It generalizes beyond the findings, making unsupported claims about family planning in the Middle East. - The study's limitations are not adequately addressed. - There is insufficient discussion of practical implications and recommendations for addressing the barriers identified. 6. Conclusion - Provide specific conclusions related to each type of barrier (affective, behavioral, cognitive). - Offer concrete recommendations for addressing the barriers identified, including policy changes, educational interventions, and community engagement. - Suggest directions for future research, such as exploring barriers in other Middle Eastern countries or using larger, more representative samples. 7. References - Many references are outdated (pre-2020). - Some references are not directly relevant to the study's focus. 8. Language and Formatting - There are grammatical errors and awkward phrasing throughout the manuscript. - Some sections are repetitive and could be streamlined. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Public Health I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Osborne A. Reviewer Report For: Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 4 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169229.r367545 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v1#referee-response-367545 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 23 Aug 2025 Hawraa Ghafel , Doctor in Maternal and Neonate Nursing Department, College of Nursing, University of Baghdad, Bab Al-Mua’adham, 10011, Iraq 23 Aug 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and comprehensive review of my manuscript. I greatly appreciate the time and effort you invested in evaluating the work and offering ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and comprehensive review of my manuscript. I greatly appreciate the time and effort you invested in evaluating the work and offering detailed feedback. Your insightful comments have been instrumental in strengthening the quality, clarity, and rigor of the revised manuscript. Please find below my point-by-point response to your observations: 1. Abstract The names of the six countries (Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia) have been added to the methodology section of the abstract. Key quantitative findings are now included to provide a clearer overview of the main results, such as the percentage of women affected by each category of attitudes The implications for policy and practice have been elaborated to emphasize the practical relevance of the findings. 2. Introduction The literature review has been significantly expanded and updated to include more recent and relevant studies published after 2020. The rationale for selecting the six countries has been explained in greater detail, highlighting their diversity in terms of socioeconomic, cultural, and policy contexts. A theoretical framework has been introduced to support the categorization of attitudes into cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains, drawing upon established models in health psychology and behavioral science (e.g., the Health Belief Model and Theory of Planned Behavior). 3. Methodology While acknowledging the limitations of the small sample size and non-probability sampling, a clear justification has been added, including ethical and logistical considerations related to data collection in clinical settings. A detailed description of the questionnaire development process, validation, and cultural adaptation procedures has been included to improve transparency and rigor. The limitations of the 3-point Likert scale have been acknowledged, and the reasons for its use explained (e.g., simplicity for participants with varying literacy levels). The absence of control for confounding variables has been addressed in the limitations section, along with recommendations for future studies to incorporate such factors. 4. Results Inferential statistical analyses (e.g., chi-square tests and cross-tabulations) have been added to explore relationships between variables and compare results across countries. The presentation of results has been revised for better synthesis and interpretation, avoiding repetitive listing and focusing on meaningful patterns. An analysis of the influence of demographic factors (age, education, nationality) on the barriers identified has been added to provide deeper insights into the findings. 5. Discussion The discussion section has been revised to include a more critical engagement with the literature, comparing findings with previous research and contextualizing them within broader regional trends. Overgeneralizations have been removed, and the discussion now closely reflects the empirical findings. A more detailed account of the study’s limitations has been added, including issues of sampling, scale design, and generalizability. Practical implications and policy recommendations are now discussed in more depth, suggesting ways to address the identified barriers through education, healthcare provider training, and community outreach. 6. Conclusion Specific conclusions related to each domain (cognitive, affective, behavioral) have been articulated. Clear, actionable recommendations for policy, health education, and community engagement have been provided. Future research directions are proposed, including the need for larger, more representative samples and the inclusion of other Middle Eastern countries. 7. References The reference list has been thoroughly updated to include more recent and directly relevant studies, particularly from 2020 onwards. Irrelevant or outdated sources have been removed or replaced with more appropriate ones. 8. Language and Formatting The manuscript has been carefully revised for grammar, phrasing, and clarity. Repetitive sections have been streamlined to improve readability and coherence throughout the paper. Once again, I thank you sincerely for your constructive critique, which has greatly contributed to the improvement of the manuscript. I hope the revised version addresses your concerns and meets the standards expected by the journal. Kind regards Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and comprehensive review of my manuscript. I greatly appreciate the time and effort you invested in evaluating the work and offering detailed feedback. Your insightful comments have been instrumental in strengthening the quality, clarity, and rigor of the revised manuscript. Please find below my point-by-point response to your observations: 1. Abstract The names of the six countries (Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia) have been added to the methodology section of the abstract. Key quantitative findings are now included to provide a clearer overview of the main results, such as the percentage of women affected by each category of attitudes The implications for policy and practice have been elaborated to emphasize the practical relevance of the findings. 2. Introduction The literature review has been significantly expanded and updated to include more recent and relevant studies published after 2020. The rationale for selecting the six countries has been explained in greater detail, highlighting their diversity in terms of socioeconomic, cultural, and policy contexts. A theoretical framework has been introduced to support the categorization of attitudes into cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains, drawing upon established models in health psychology and behavioral science (e.g., the Health Belief Model and Theory of Planned Behavior). 3. Methodology While acknowledging the limitations of the small sample size and non-probability sampling, a clear justification has been added, including ethical and logistical considerations related to data collection in clinical settings. A detailed description of the questionnaire development process, validation, and cultural adaptation procedures has been included to improve transparency and rigor. The limitations of the 3-point Likert scale have been acknowledged, and the reasons for its use explained (e.g., simplicity for participants with varying literacy levels). The absence of control for confounding variables has been addressed in the limitations section, along with recommendations for future studies to incorporate such factors. 4. Results Inferential statistical analyses (e.g., chi-square tests and cross-tabulations) have been added to explore relationships between variables and compare results across countries. The presentation of results has been revised for better synthesis and interpretation, avoiding repetitive listing and focusing on meaningful patterns. An analysis of the influence of demographic factors (age, education, nationality) on the barriers identified has been added to provide deeper insights into the findings. 5. Discussion The discussion section has been revised to include a more critical engagement with the literature, comparing findings with previous research and contextualizing them within broader regional trends. Overgeneralizations have been removed, and the discussion now closely reflects the empirical findings. A more detailed account of the study’s limitations has been added, including issues of sampling, scale design, and generalizability. Practical implications and policy recommendations are now discussed in more depth, suggesting ways to address the identified barriers through education, healthcare provider training, and community outreach. 6. Conclusion Specific conclusions related to each domain (cognitive, affective, behavioral) have been articulated. Clear, actionable recommendations for policy, health education, and community engagement have been provided. Future research directions are proposed, including the need for larger, more representative samples and the inclusion of other Middle Eastern countries. 7. References The reference list has been thoroughly updated to include more recent and directly relevant studies, particularly from 2020 onwards. Irrelevant or outdated sources have been removed or replaced with more appropriate ones. 8. Language and Formatting The manuscript has been carefully revised for grammar, phrasing, and clarity. Repetitive sections have been streamlined to improve readability and coherence throughout the paper. Once again, I thank you sincerely for your constructive critique, which has greatly contributed to the improvement of the manuscript. I hope the revised version addresses your concerns and meets the standards expected by the journal. Kind regards Competing Interests: i have no any competing interest Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 23 Aug 2025 Hawraa Ghafel , Doctor in Maternal and Neonate Nursing Department, College of Nursing, University of Baghdad, Bab Al-Mua’adham, 10011, Iraq 23 Aug 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and comprehensive review of my manuscript. I greatly appreciate the time and effort you invested in evaluating the work and offering ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and comprehensive review of my manuscript. I greatly appreciate the time and effort you invested in evaluating the work and offering detailed feedback. Your insightful comments have been instrumental in strengthening the quality, clarity, and rigor of the revised manuscript. Please find below my point-by-point response to your observations: 1. Abstract The names of the six countries (Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia) have been added to the methodology section of the abstract. Key quantitative findings are now included to provide a clearer overview of the main results, such as the percentage of women affected by each category of attitudes The implications for policy and practice have been elaborated to emphasize the practical relevance of the findings. 2. Introduction The literature review has been significantly expanded and updated to include more recent and relevant studies published after 2020. The rationale for selecting the six countries has been explained in greater detail, highlighting their diversity in terms of socioeconomic, cultural, and policy contexts. A theoretical framework has been introduced to support the categorization of attitudes into cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains, drawing upon established models in health psychology and behavioral science (e.g., the Health Belief Model and Theory of Planned Behavior). 3. Methodology While acknowledging the limitations of the small sample size and non-probability sampling, a clear justification has been added, including ethical and logistical considerations related to data collection in clinical settings. A detailed description of the questionnaire development process, validation, and cultural adaptation procedures has been included to improve transparency and rigor. The limitations of the 3-point Likert scale have been acknowledged, and the reasons for its use explained (e.g., simplicity for participants with varying literacy levels). The absence of control for confounding variables has been addressed in the limitations section, along with recommendations for future studies to incorporate such factors. 4. Results Inferential statistical analyses (e.g., chi-square tests and cross-tabulations) have been added to explore relationships between variables and compare results across countries. The presentation of results has been revised for better synthesis and interpretation, avoiding repetitive listing and focusing on meaningful patterns. An analysis of the influence of demographic factors (age, education, nationality) on the barriers identified has been added to provide deeper insights into the findings. 5. Discussion The discussion section has been revised to include a more critical engagement with the literature, comparing findings with previous research and contextualizing them within broader regional trends. Overgeneralizations have been removed, and the discussion now closely reflects the empirical findings. A more detailed account of the study’s limitations has been added, including issues of sampling, scale design, and generalizability. Practical implications and policy recommendations are now discussed in more depth, suggesting ways to address the identified barriers through education, healthcare provider training, and community outreach. 6. Conclusion Specific conclusions related to each domain (cognitive, affective, behavioral) have been articulated. Clear, actionable recommendations for policy, health education, and community engagement have been provided. Future research directions are proposed, including the need for larger, more representative samples and the inclusion of other Middle Eastern countries. 7. References The reference list has been thoroughly updated to include more recent and directly relevant studies, particularly from 2020 onwards. Irrelevant or outdated sources have been removed or replaced with more appropriate ones. 8. Language and Formatting The manuscript has been carefully revised for grammar, phrasing, and clarity. Repetitive sections have been streamlined to improve readability and coherence throughout the paper. Once again, I thank you sincerely for your constructive critique, which has greatly contributed to the improvement of the manuscript. I hope the revised version addresses your concerns and meets the standards expected by the journal. Kind regards Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and comprehensive review of my manuscript. I greatly appreciate the time and effort you invested in evaluating the work and offering detailed feedback. Your insightful comments have been instrumental in strengthening the quality, clarity, and rigor of the revised manuscript. Please find below my point-by-point response to your observations: 1. Abstract The names of the six countries (Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia) have been added to the methodology section of the abstract. Key quantitative findings are now included to provide a clearer overview of the main results, such as the percentage of women affected by each category of attitudes The implications for policy and practice have been elaborated to emphasize the practical relevance of the findings. 2. Introduction The literature review has been significantly expanded and updated to include more recent and relevant studies published after 2020. The rationale for selecting the six countries has been explained in greater detail, highlighting their diversity in terms of socioeconomic, cultural, and policy contexts. A theoretical framework has been introduced to support the categorization of attitudes into cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains, drawing upon established models in health psychology and behavioral science (e.g., the Health Belief Model and Theory of Planned Behavior). 3. Methodology While acknowledging the limitations of the small sample size and non-probability sampling, a clear justification has been added, including ethical and logistical considerations related to data collection in clinical settings. A detailed description of the questionnaire development process, validation, and cultural adaptation procedures has been included to improve transparency and rigor. The limitations of the 3-point Likert scale have been acknowledged, and the reasons for its use explained (e.g., simplicity for participants with varying literacy levels). The absence of control for confounding variables has been addressed in the limitations section, along with recommendations for future studies to incorporate such factors. 4. Results Inferential statistical analyses (e.g., chi-square tests and cross-tabulations) have been added to explore relationships between variables and compare results across countries. The presentation of results has been revised for better synthesis and interpretation, avoiding repetitive listing and focusing on meaningful patterns. An analysis of the influence of demographic factors (age, education, nationality) on the barriers identified has been added to provide deeper insights into the findings. 5. Discussion The discussion section has been revised to include a more critical engagement with the literature, comparing findings with previous research and contextualizing them within broader regional trends. Overgeneralizations have been removed, and the discussion now closely reflects the empirical findings. A more detailed account of the study’s limitations has been added, including issues of sampling, scale design, and generalizability. Practical implications and policy recommendations are now discussed in more depth, suggesting ways to address the identified barriers through education, healthcare provider training, and community outreach. 6. Conclusion Specific conclusions related to each domain (cognitive, affective, behavioral) have been articulated. Clear, actionable recommendations for policy, health education, and community engagement have been provided. Future research directions are proposed, including the need for larger, more representative samples and the inclusion of other Middle Eastern countries. 7. References The reference list has been thoroughly updated to include more recent and directly relevant studies, particularly from 2020 onwards. Irrelevant or outdated sources have been removed or replaced with more appropriate ones. 8. Language and Formatting The manuscript has been carefully revised for grammar, phrasing, and clarity. Repetitive sections have been streamlined to improve readability and coherence throughout the paper. Once again, I thank you sincerely for your constructive critique, which has greatly contributed to the improvement of the manuscript. I hope the revised version addresses your concerns and meets the standards expected by the journal. Kind regards Competing Interests: i have no any competing interest Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Tsui AO. Reviewer Report For: Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 4 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169229.r327613 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v1#referee-response-327613 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 11 Oct 2024 Amy O Tsui , Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169229.r327613 Aim: The study pursues an important topic, i.e., to understand cognitive, affective and behavioral factors inhibiting the decision to use contraception among Middle Eastern (ME) women. In reality the level of use of modern contraceptive methods in many Middle Eastern ... Continue reading READ ALL Aim: The study pursues an important topic, i.e., to understand cognitive, affective and behavioral factors inhibiting the decision to use contraception among Middle Eastern (ME) women. In reality the level of use of modern contraceptive methods in many Middle Eastern countries is quite robust. According to the UN’s World Contraceptive Use database for 2022, the six ME counties selected for this study have modern contraceptive prevalence rates (mCPR) for married women of childbearing age ranging from 56.9% (Egypt) to 24.4% (Saudi Arabia). The mCPR usually maximizes at 80% (e.g., China, Sweden) which indicates that at least one-fifth of the eligible female population will not use at any given time (due to infecundity, seeking to become pregnant, non-exposure). Thus, while mCPR may be low in some countries, use is not trivial. Also there is considerable reliance on withdrawal (considered a traditional method). Design/Sample: The author relies on a convenience sample of 198 mothers attending clinics in Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The sample, in addition to being purposive, is small (33 women per setting) and cannot represent the range of contraceptive experiences in these countries. More justification is needed as to why these six countries are included and not others, such as Syria, Irban, Oman, Qatar. An 85% confidence interval is very large for estimating these barriers; what was the initial “p” value used to calculate the needed sample size? A p of 0.5 with an alpha of 0.05 usually needs around 500 sample units and this is for one population. Theoretical framework for the 3 barrier domains: How did the author decide on “cognitive”, “affective” and “behavioral” domains? The author should define what each domain represents. Analysis/Results: The question items in each domain set are plausible but require supporting literature. The Likert scale used has only 3 points and may not adequately differentiate a respondent’s attitude toward an item. In the study 1 = never, 2=sometimes, 3=always. Mean values between 2 and 3 dominate; only 2 out of the total 51 items have a mean below 2.0. Likert scales usually have 5 points (strongly agree, agree, neutral/undecided, disagree, strongly disagree). Even though a Cronbach’s alpha value is given (presumably for all 51 items), there should be 3 alpha values, one for each domain. Analytically, with a sufficient sample size, the responses could be analyzed with principal components analysis to see if the items do load onto three factors and confirm the labels given. The descriptive analysis of means is difficult to interpret. Discussion/Conclusions: This section should be limited to what has been empirically analyzed and not generalize beyond the findings. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Reproductive health behaviors I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Tsui AO. Reviewer Report For: Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 4 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169229.r327613 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v1#referee-response-327613 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 23 Aug 2025 Hawraa Ghafel , Doctor in Maternal and Neonate Nursing Department, College of Nursing, University of Baghdad, Bab Al-Mua’adham, 10011, Iraq 23 Aug 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed review of my manuscript. I truly appreciate the time and effort you devoted to providing constructive feedback, which has ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed review of my manuscript. I truly appreciate the time and effort you devoted to providing constructive feedback, which has helped me significantly improve the quality and clarity of the study. Please find below my responses to your comments and the changes made accordingly: On modern contraceptive prevalence rates (mCPR): I fully acknowledge your observation regarding the relatively robust mCPR levels in several Middle Eastern countries. In the revised version, I have included data from the UN’s 2022 World Contraceptive Use database and emphasized that while modern contraceptive use exists at moderate to high levels in the selected countries, significant attitudes especially cognitive, affective, and behavioral—still influence non-use or inconsistent use among subgroups of women. This has been clarified in both the introduction and discussion sections to avoid any misleading generalizations. On the sample and country selection: I agree with your concern regarding the small, purposive sample. I have now added a detailed justification for the inclusion of Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, highlighting their contextual diversity in terms of contraceptive policies, healthcare systems, and sociocultural norms. I have also clarified the limitations of the convenience sampling approach and its implications for generalizability. Regarding the sample size, I have specified that the original calculation was based on a 0.5 estimated proportion with a 95% confidence level, but due to feasibility constraints and ethical approvals in clinical settings, a smaller sample was used. I have revised the confidence level discussions in the methodology section accordingly. On the theoretical framework (cognitive, affective, behavioral): I have now defined each domain clearly in the methodology section, based on relevant literature from health psychology and behavioral science. I have also added references supporting the rationale for attitudes under these three domains, which align with well-established models such as the Theory of Planned Behavior. On scale design and analysis: Based on your helpful feedback, I recognize the limitation of using a 3-point Likert scale. While it was initially chosen for simplicity and clarity among participants with varied educational backgrounds, I have now included this rationale in the methodology, along with a discussion of its potential limitations in the analysis section. Furthermore, I have provided separate Cronbach’s alpha values for each domain to reflect internal consistency more accurately. Due to sample size constraints, principal components analysis could not be conducted; however, I have noted this as a recommendation for future research with larger datasets. On discussion and conclusions: The discussion section has been carefully revised to ensure it reflects only what has been empirically analyzed. Overgeneralizations have been removed, and the conclusions are now more tightly grounded in the study's specific findings. Once again, I am sincerely grateful for your comments, which have contributed substantially to strengthening the manuscript. Please feel free to share any further thoughts or suggestions. Kind regards Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed review of my manuscript. I truly appreciate the time and effort you devoted to providing constructive feedback, which has helped me significantly improve the quality and clarity of the study. Please find below my responses to your comments and the changes made accordingly: On modern contraceptive prevalence rates (mCPR): I fully acknowledge your observation regarding the relatively robust mCPR levels in several Middle Eastern countries. In the revised version, I have included data from the UN’s 2022 World Contraceptive Use database and emphasized that while modern contraceptive use exists at moderate to high levels in the selected countries, significant attitudes especially cognitive, affective, and behavioral—still influence non-use or inconsistent use among subgroups of women. This has been clarified in both the introduction and discussion sections to avoid any misleading generalizations. On the sample and country selection: I agree with your concern regarding the small, purposive sample. I have now added a detailed justification for the inclusion of Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, highlighting their contextual diversity in terms of contraceptive policies, healthcare systems, and sociocultural norms. I have also clarified the limitations of the convenience sampling approach and its implications for generalizability. Regarding the sample size, I have specified that the original calculation was based on a 0.5 estimated proportion with a 95% confidence level, but due to feasibility constraints and ethical approvals in clinical settings, a smaller sample was used. I have revised the confidence level discussions in the methodology section accordingly. On the theoretical framework (cognitive, affective, behavioral): I have now defined each domain clearly in the methodology section, based on relevant literature from health psychology and behavioral science. I have also added references supporting the rationale for attitudes under these three domains, which align with well-established models such as the Theory of Planned Behavior. On scale design and analysis: Based on your helpful feedback, I recognize the limitation of using a 3-point Likert scale. While it was initially chosen for simplicity and clarity among participants with varied educational backgrounds, I have now included this rationale in the methodology, along with a discussion of its potential limitations in the analysis section. Furthermore, I have provided separate Cronbach’s alpha values for each domain to reflect internal consistency more accurately. Due to sample size constraints, principal components analysis could not be conducted; however, I have noted this as a recommendation for future research with larger datasets. On discussion and conclusions: The discussion section has been carefully revised to ensure it reflects only what has been empirically analyzed. Overgeneralizations have been removed, and the conclusions are now more tightly grounded in the study's specific findings. Once again, I am sincerely grateful for your comments, which have contributed substantially to strengthening the manuscript. Please feel free to share any further thoughts or suggestions. Kind regards Competing Interests: I have no any competing interest Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 23 Aug 2025 Hawraa Ghafel , Doctor in Maternal and Neonate Nursing Department, College of Nursing, University of Baghdad, Bab Al-Mua’adham, 10011, Iraq 23 Aug 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed review of my manuscript. I truly appreciate the time and effort you devoted to providing constructive feedback, which has ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed review of my manuscript. I truly appreciate the time and effort you devoted to providing constructive feedback, which has helped me significantly improve the quality and clarity of the study. Please find below my responses to your comments and the changes made accordingly: On modern contraceptive prevalence rates (mCPR): I fully acknowledge your observation regarding the relatively robust mCPR levels in several Middle Eastern countries. In the revised version, I have included data from the UN’s 2022 World Contraceptive Use database and emphasized that while modern contraceptive use exists at moderate to high levels in the selected countries, significant attitudes especially cognitive, affective, and behavioral—still influence non-use or inconsistent use among subgroups of women. This has been clarified in both the introduction and discussion sections to avoid any misleading generalizations. On the sample and country selection: I agree with your concern regarding the small, purposive sample. I have now added a detailed justification for the inclusion of Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, highlighting their contextual diversity in terms of contraceptive policies, healthcare systems, and sociocultural norms. I have also clarified the limitations of the convenience sampling approach and its implications for generalizability. Regarding the sample size, I have specified that the original calculation was based on a 0.5 estimated proportion with a 95% confidence level, but due to feasibility constraints and ethical approvals in clinical settings, a smaller sample was used. I have revised the confidence level discussions in the methodology section accordingly. On the theoretical framework (cognitive, affective, behavioral): I have now defined each domain clearly in the methodology section, based on relevant literature from health psychology and behavioral science. I have also added references supporting the rationale for attitudes under these three domains, which align with well-established models such as the Theory of Planned Behavior. On scale design and analysis: Based on your helpful feedback, I recognize the limitation of using a 3-point Likert scale. While it was initially chosen for simplicity and clarity among participants with varied educational backgrounds, I have now included this rationale in the methodology, along with a discussion of its potential limitations in the analysis section. Furthermore, I have provided separate Cronbach’s alpha values for each domain to reflect internal consistency more accurately. Due to sample size constraints, principal components analysis could not be conducted; however, I have noted this as a recommendation for future research with larger datasets. On discussion and conclusions: The discussion section has been carefully revised to ensure it reflects only what has been empirically analyzed. Overgeneralizations have been removed, and the conclusions are now more tightly grounded in the study's specific findings. Once again, I am sincerely grateful for your comments, which have contributed substantially to strengthening the manuscript. Please feel free to share any further thoughts or suggestions. Kind regards Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed review of my manuscript. I truly appreciate the time and effort you devoted to providing constructive feedback, which has helped me significantly improve the quality and clarity of the study. Please find below my responses to your comments and the changes made accordingly: On modern contraceptive prevalence rates (mCPR): I fully acknowledge your observation regarding the relatively robust mCPR levels in several Middle Eastern countries. In the revised version, I have included data from the UN’s 2022 World Contraceptive Use database and emphasized that while modern contraceptive use exists at moderate to high levels in the selected countries, significant attitudes especially cognitive, affective, and behavioral—still influence non-use or inconsistent use among subgroups of women. This has been clarified in both the introduction and discussion sections to avoid any misleading generalizations. On the sample and country selection: I agree with your concern regarding the small, purposive sample. I have now added a detailed justification for the inclusion of Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, highlighting their contextual diversity in terms of contraceptive policies, healthcare systems, and sociocultural norms. I have also clarified the limitations of the convenience sampling approach and its implications for generalizability. Regarding the sample size, I have specified that the original calculation was based on a 0.5 estimated proportion with a 95% confidence level, but due to feasibility constraints and ethical approvals in clinical settings, a smaller sample was used. I have revised the confidence level discussions in the methodology section accordingly. On the theoretical framework (cognitive, affective, behavioral): I have now defined each domain clearly in the methodology section, based on relevant literature from health psychology and behavioral science. I have also added references supporting the rationale for attitudes under these three domains, which align with well-established models such as the Theory of Planned Behavior. On scale design and analysis: Based on your helpful feedback, I recognize the limitation of using a 3-point Likert scale. While it was initially chosen for simplicity and clarity among participants with varied educational backgrounds, I have now included this rationale in the methodology, along with a discussion of its potential limitations in the analysis section. Furthermore, I have provided separate Cronbach’s alpha values for each domain to reflect internal consistency more accurately. Due to sample size constraints, principal components analysis could not be conducted; however, I have noted this as a recommendation for future research with larger datasets. On discussion and conclusions: The discussion section has been carefully revised to ensure it reflects only what has been empirically analyzed. Overgeneralizations have been removed, and the conclusions are now more tightly grounded in the study's specific findings. Once again, I am sincerely grateful for your comments, which have contributed substantially to strengthening the manuscript. Please feel free to share any further thoughts or suggestions. Kind regards Competing Interests: I have no any competing interest Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (1) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 16 Jul 2025 Revised Comment ADD YOUR COMMENT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 06 Aug 2024 Discussion is closed on this version, please comment on the latest version above. Reader Comment 23 Aug 2024 Resti Tito Villarino , Local Research Ethics Committee, Cebu Technological University, Cebu City, Philippines 23 Aug 2024 Reader Comment 1. Title and Abstract: The title adequately reflects the study's content. However, it could be more specific by mentioning the countries involved and the types of barriers examined. ... Continue reading 1. Title and Abstract: The title adequately reflects the study's content. However, it could be more specific by mentioning the countries involved and the types of barriers examined. The abstract provides a concise overview of the study but could be improved by: Specifying the six Arabic countries in the methodology section Including more quantitative results (e.g., percentages for each type of barrier) Elaborating on the implications of the findings 2. Introduction: Areas for improvement: The literature review lacks depth and critical analysis of existing research. Many references are outdated (pre-2020). The research gap and rationale for this specific study are not clearly articulated. There is no clear theoretical framework presented. 3. Methods: Areas for improvement: More details are needed on the development and validation of the questionnaire. There is a lack of information on how the questionnaire was translated (if applicable) and culturally adapted for different countries. There is no mention of potential confounding variables or how they were controlled for Limited information on data analysis techniques beyond descriptive statistics 4. Results: Areas for improvement: Lack of inferential statistics to explore relationships between variables. There is no comparison of results between the six countries studied. Limited analysis of how demographic factors relate to the barriers identified. Some tables could be simplified or combined for better readability. 5. Discussion: Areas for improvement: Limited critical analysis of the study's findings. Insufficient comparison with previous research findings. There is a lack of discussion on how the identified barriers might be addressed. No clear discussion of the study's limitations. Implications for policy and practice are not thoroughly explored. 6. Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the main findings but is relatively brief and general. It could be improved by: Providing more specific conclusions related to each type of barrier. Offering concrete recommendations based on the findings. Suggesting directions for future research. Overall comments: This study addresses an important topic in reproductive health in the Middle East. However, there are several areas where the manuscript could be substantially improved: The introduction needs a more comprehensive and up-to-date literature review, a clearer articulation of the research gap, and a theoretical framework. The methods section should detail questionnaire development, validation, and cultural adaptation. The results section would benefit from more advanced statistical analyses, including comparisons between countries and exploring relationships between variables. The discussion needs more critical analysis, thorough comparison with existing literature, and exploration of implications. The conclusion should offer more specific insights and recommendations based on the findings. Throughout the paper, some grammatical and structural issues should be addressed to improve clarity and readability. 1. Title and Abstract: The title adequately reflects the study's content. However, it could be more specific by mentioning the countries involved and the types of barriers examined. The abstract provides a concise overview of the study but could be improved by: Specifying the six Arabic countries in the methodology section Including more quantitative results (e.g., percentages for each type of barrier) Elaborating on the implications of the findings 2. Introduction: Areas for improvement: The literature review lacks depth and critical analysis of existing research. Many references are outdated (pre-2020). The research gap and rationale for this specific study are not clearly articulated. There is no clear theoretical framework presented. 3. Methods: Areas for improvement: More details are needed on the development and validation of the questionnaire. There is a lack of information on how the questionnaire was translated (if applicable) and culturally adapted for different countries. There is no mention of potential confounding variables or how they were controlled for Limited information on data analysis techniques beyond descriptive statistics 4. Results: Areas for improvement: Lack of inferential statistics to explore relationships between variables. There is no comparison of results between the six countries studied. Limited analysis of how demographic factors relate to the barriers identified. Some tables could be simplified or combined for better readability. 5. Discussion: Areas for improvement: Limited critical analysis of the study's findings. Insufficient comparison with previous research findings. There is a lack of discussion on how the identified barriers might be addressed. No clear discussion of the study's limitations. Implications for policy and practice are not thoroughly explored. 6. Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the main findings but is relatively brief and general. It could be improved by: Providing more specific conclusions related to each type of barrier. Offering concrete recommendations based on the findings. Suggesting directions for future research. Overall comments: This study addresses an important topic in reproductive health in the Middle East. However, there are several areas where the manuscript could be substantially improved: The introduction needs a more comprehensive and up-to-date literature review, a clearer articulation of the research gap, and a theoretical framework. The methods section should detail questionnaire development, validation, and cultural adaptation. The results section would benefit from more advanced statistical analyses, including comparisons between countries and exploring relationships between variables. The discussion needs more critical analysis, thorough comparison with existing literature, and exploration of implications. The conclusion should offer more specific insights and recommendations based on the findings. Throughout the paper, some grammatical and structural issues should be addressed to improve clarity and readability. Competing Interests: None declared. Close Report a concern Discussion is closed on this version, please comment on the latest version above. keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 5 Version 2 (revision) 16 Jul 25 read read read Version 1 06 Aug 24 read read read Amy O Tsui , Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA Augustus Osborne , Njala University, Freetown, Sierra Leone Barbara Friedland , Population Council, New York, USA Catherine Mathews , South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa; University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa Bidhya Shrestha , Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal Comments on this article All Comments (1) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Shrestha B. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 13 Oct 2025 | for Version 2 Bidhya Shrestha , Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Kathmandu, Nepal 0 Views copyright © 2025 Shrestha B. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions - Provides a broad overview of the importance of family planning in health and development. The literature review is not sufficiently critical or current; many references are outdated (pre-2020). For example, missing SDGs. What about the 2014 Egypt DHS? - Expand and update the literature review. - Fertility rate-based justification, which strengthens the study’s scope. - The inclusion of six Arab countries provides regional diversity, which is valuable for comparative insights. -Use of Google Forms assumes digital literacy and internet access. This may have excluded illiterate women or those without internet access, introducing selection bias. It is recommended to acknowledge this limitation and clarify whether assistance was provided during data collection. - The conclusion does not reflect the three attitude domains (effective, behavioral, cognitive) that were central to the study. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise The study is significant for its regional focus and fertility-based country selection, offering valuable insights into reproductive health behaviors. With revisions to improve methodological clarity, analytical rigor, and framing of conclusions, it can be a strong contribution to both academic literature and teaching. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Shrestha B. Peer Review Report For: Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 4 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183462.r415843) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v2#referee-response-415843 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Mathews C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 11 Sep 2025 | for Version 2 Catherine Mathews , Health Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa; University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa 0 Views copyright © 2025 Mathews C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The purpose of this study is to explore the attitudes of women in middle Eastern countries towards family planning, and to identify their practices related to family planning. In addition, the authors set out to examine the association between attitudes and practices. There are important research questions. One of the main and most serious limitations of the study is that the sampling was purposive and "non probability". Furthermore, the authors do not describe how the women were sampled, and how the primary healthcare centers were sampled. Therefore, the authors ability to provide data related to the study purpose is undermined and the findings cannot be said to represent the attitudes and behaviour of "Middle Eastern woman". There is no ability to compare sub-groups, and this is another major limitation. The authors do not examine the association between attitudes and practices, and therefore one of the purposes of the study is not met. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Health systems research related to sexual and reproductive health I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Mathews C. Peer Review Report For: Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 4 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183462.r412541) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v2#referee-response-412541 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Tsui A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 25 Aug 2025 | for Version 2 Amy O Tsui , Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA 0 Views copyright © 2025 Tsui A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The author appears to have made a genuine effort to try to respond to 3 sets of criticisms but the paper still falls short of what I consider the standards of scientific publication. There is no hypothesis being tested, the three attitude sets have minimal variation (nearly all statements are classified in the high range and none in the low range) and none are examined for their relationship to contraceptive use. The sample recruitment leans heavily toward well educated women which limits observation of a full variation in supposed barriers to adoption. Current use at 86.7% among the sample is practically-speaking very high. Although the sample of 198 women are drawn from 6 Middle Eastern countries, there is no statistical basis to analyze variation among the sites. That the analysis does not even endeavor to investigate the associations between the affective, behavioral and cognitive barrier measures with contraceptive practice is baffling. Last a Likert scale involves more than 3 choice/response points, it usually involves 5 or 7 points and can be as many as 10. Having just 3 response choices limits variation that can enable scale development and construction. A final if minor point--the abstract refers to using the R package for analysis and the main text cites using SPSS. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Reproductive health I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Tsui AO. Peer Review Report For: Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 4 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183462.r398761) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v2#referee-response-398761 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Friedland B. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 02 Apr 2025 | for Version 1 Barbara Friedland , Center for Biomedical Research, Population Council, New York, New York, USA 0 Views copyright © 2025 Friedland B. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The article is about barriers to contraception based on a cross-sectional survey implemented in 6 countries. Women responded to a survey with a 3-point Likert scale measuring attitudes and behaviors related to contraception. However, the survey instrument is problematic as presented: - if the survey is meant to be a scale, it is unclear how the items were developed, tested, validated, etc. - there are multiple overlapping items between the 3 domains in the survey/scale - items are not all framed in the same direction; for some items, a 3 -- "always" -- would be a positive response whereas for other items a 1 or "never" would be a positive response. Because of this, it is not possible to arrive at mean scores that represent an overall positive or negative attitude or experience related to contraception. Therefore, the article does not make a compelling case that there are barriers to contraceptive use. Other concerns that are less critical are: It is unclear why the 6 countries were chosen -- what do they have in common? What is different among them? It would be helpful to understand why this specific set of 6 countries was included. The title indicated that the study was focused on barriers to contraceptive use, but "unmet need" is only applicable to people who do not want to become pregnant yet are not doing anything to prevent pregnancy. It is unclear if all women in the study did not want to get pregnant. The sample size is not adequately explained -- what is the outcome that the sample size was based upon? Regardless of outcomes, 198 women across 6 countries is a very small sample upon which to base any conclusions. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise I am researcher based at an international non-profit institution with a masters in public health conducting clinical and behavioral research. I have expertise in developing and implementing surveys, including scales for measuring latent constructs. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 23 Aug 2025 Hawraa Ghafel , Doctor in Maternal and Neonate Nursing Department, College of Nursing, University of Baghdad, Bab Al-Mua’adham, 10011, Iraq Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and valuable feedback on my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate your careful review and constructive suggestions, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the clarity and rigor of the revised version. Please find below my responses to the issues you raised: 1. Survey instrument development and validation I fully acknowledge the concerns regarding the survey tool. In the revised manuscript, I have included a detailed explanation of the item development process, which was informed by a review of relevant literature and pre-tested in two countries to ensure clarity and cultural appropriateness. I have also clarified the steps taken to ensure content validity, and while full psychometric validation was not feasible due to sample size limitations, I have transparently acknowledged this limitation and its implications for interpretation. 2. Overlapping and inconsistent item framing Thank you for pointing out the issue of overlapping items and inconsistent directionality. I have carefully reviewed the entire set of items across the three domains and made revisions to remove redundancy and ensure greater consistency in how the items are framed. Furthermore, I clarified in the methods section that items with reversed scoring were re-coded appropriately during the analysis phase. I also addressed the limitations of relying on mean scores in the discussion, and emphasized that the results should be interpreted as indicative of patterns rather than definitive measures of attitude strength. 3. Justification for country selection In selecting the countries included in this study, a purposive sampling strategy was employed to ensure a diverse yet representative understanding of attitudes and practices toward family planning among Middle Eastern women. Six Arab countries were chosen: Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, and Yemen. The selection was primarily based on fertility rate indicators , as reported by recent demographic and health data. Countries with high fertility rates , such as Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, were prioritized to explore potential gaps in family planning awareness and utilization. Jordan and Lebanon were included to provide comparative insights from countries with relatively lower fertility rates but similar cultural and regional contexts. This combination allows the study to capture a broader spectrum of experiences and challenges, offering a more nuanced understanding of family planning behaviors across varying socio-economic and demographic profiles within the Arab world. 4. Clarity on "unmet need" Thank you for raising this important distinction. I have clarified in the revised text that while the study explores the attitudes and practice, it does not exclusively focus on women with an "unmet need" as defined by demographic health surveys. This distinction has now been made explicit, and references to "unmet need" have been revised or removed to avoid confusion. 5. Sample size explanation I have expanded the description of the sample size estimation, specifying the assumptions used (including estimated proportion and confidence level), and acknowledged the limitations of the small, purposive sample. As noted, while the total number of 198 women across six countries limits the generalizability of the findings, the study is intended as an exploratory effort to identify patterns and guide future, larger-scale research. Once again, I truly appreciate your careful critique. Your comments were extremely helpful in refining the methodology and strengthening the manuscript overall. I hope the revisions adequately address your concerns. Kind regards, View more View less Competing Interests i have no any competing interest reply Respond Report a concern Friedland B. Peer Review Report For: Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 4 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169229.r367544) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v1#referee-response-367544 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Osborne A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 20 Feb 2025 | for Version 1 Augustus Osborne , Njala University, Freetown, Sierra Leone 0 Views copyright © 2025 Osborne A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Peer Review Report Manuscript Title: Understanding of Middle East Women’s Decisions and Barriers to Use Family Planning Methods This manuscript addresses a critical and timely issue in reproductive health, focusing on the cognitive, affective, and behavioral barriers faced by women in six Middle Eastern countries when making decisions about family planning. While the study has the potential to contribute to the understanding of family planning challenges in the region, there are significant gaps in the methodology, analysis, and presentation of findings that need to be addressed to improve its scientific rigor and clarity. 1. Abstract - Specify the six countries included in the study in the methodology section of the abstract. - Include key quantitative results (e.g., percentages of women experiencing each type of barrier). - Elaborate on the implications of the findings, particularly for policy and practice. 2. Introduction - The literature review lacks depth and critical engagement with recent studies, with many references predating 2020. - The rationale for selecting the six countries (Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia) is not explained. - There is no clear theoretical framework to support the categorization of barriers into cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains. Introduce a theoretical framework to define and support the categorization of barriers into cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains. 3. Methodology - The sample size (198 women) is small and not representative of the diverse populations in the six countries. - The use of a non-probability purposive sampling method limits the generalizability of the findings. - The questionnaire's development, validation, and cultural adaptation are not adequately detailed. - The use of a 3-point Likert scale is insufficient to capture nuanced responses and limits the depth of analysis. - Confounding variables (e.g., socioeconomic status, urban/rural residence) are not addressed. 4. Results - The analysis is limited to descriptive statistics, with no inferential statistics to explore relationships between variables or compare results across countries. - The presentation of results is repetitive, with little synthesis or interpretation. - There is no analysis of how demographic factors (e.g., age, education, nationality) relate to the identified barriers. - Include inferential statistics (e.g., chi-square tests, regression analysis) to explore relationships between variables and compare results across countries. - Synthesize the findings to provide a clearer narrative rather than listing results without interpretation. - Analyze how demographic factors (e.g., age, education, nationality) influence the barriers identified. 5. Discussion - The discussion lacks critical analysis and comparison with existing literature. - It generalizes beyond the findings, making unsupported claims about family planning in the Middle East. - The study's limitations are not adequately addressed. - There is insufficient discussion of practical implications and recommendations for addressing the barriers identified. 6. Conclusion - Provide specific conclusions related to each type of barrier (affective, behavioral, cognitive). - Offer concrete recommendations for addressing the barriers identified, including policy changes, educational interventions, and community engagement. - Suggest directions for future research, such as exploring barriers in other Middle Eastern countries or using larger, more representative samples. 7. References - Many references are outdated (pre-2020). - Some references are not directly relevant to the study's focus. 8. Language and Formatting - There are grammatical errors and awkward phrasing throughout the manuscript. - Some sections are repetitive and could be streamlined. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Public Health I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 23 Aug 2025 Hawraa Ghafel , Doctor in Maternal and Neonate Nursing Department, College of Nursing, University of Baghdad, Bab Al-Mua’adham, 10011, Iraq Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and comprehensive review of my manuscript. I greatly appreciate the time and effort you invested in evaluating the work and offering detailed feedback. Your insightful comments have been instrumental in strengthening the quality, clarity, and rigor of the revised manuscript. Please find below my point-by-point response to your observations: 1. Abstract The names of the six countries (Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia) have been added to the methodology section of the abstract. Key quantitative findings are now included to provide a clearer overview of the main results, such as the percentage of women affected by each category of attitudes The implications for policy and practice have been elaborated to emphasize the practical relevance of the findings. 2. Introduction The literature review has been significantly expanded and updated to include more recent and relevant studies published after 2020. The rationale for selecting the six countries has been explained in greater detail, highlighting their diversity in terms of socioeconomic, cultural, and policy contexts. A theoretical framework has been introduced to support the categorization of attitudes into cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains, drawing upon established models in health psychology and behavioral science (e.g., the Health Belief Model and Theory of Planned Behavior). 3. Methodology While acknowledging the limitations of the small sample size and non-probability sampling, a clear justification has been added, including ethical and logistical considerations related to data collection in clinical settings. A detailed description of the questionnaire development process, validation, and cultural adaptation procedures has been included to improve transparency and rigor. The limitations of the 3-point Likert scale have been acknowledged, and the reasons for its use explained (e.g., simplicity for participants with varying literacy levels). The absence of control for confounding variables has been addressed in the limitations section, along with recommendations for future studies to incorporate such factors. 4. Results Inferential statistical analyses (e.g., chi-square tests and cross-tabulations) have been added to explore relationships between variables and compare results across countries. The presentation of results has been revised for better synthesis and interpretation, avoiding repetitive listing and focusing on meaningful patterns. An analysis of the influence of demographic factors (age, education, nationality) on the barriers identified has been added to provide deeper insights into the findings. 5. Discussion The discussion section has been revised to include a more critical engagement with the literature, comparing findings with previous research and contextualizing them within broader regional trends. Overgeneralizations have been removed, and the discussion now closely reflects the empirical findings. A more detailed account of the study’s limitations has been added, including issues of sampling, scale design, and generalizability. Practical implications and policy recommendations are now discussed in more depth, suggesting ways to address the identified barriers through education, healthcare provider training, and community outreach. 6. Conclusion Specific conclusions related to each domain (cognitive, affective, behavioral) have been articulated. Clear, actionable recommendations for policy, health education, and community engagement have been provided. Future research directions are proposed, including the need for larger, more representative samples and the inclusion of other Middle Eastern countries. 7. References The reference list has been thoroughly updated to include more recent and directly relevant studies, particularly from 2020 onwards. Irrelevant or outdated sources have been removed or replaced with more appropriate ones. 8. Language and Formatting The manuscript has been carefully revised for grammar, phrasing, and clarity. Repetitive sections have been streamlined to improve readability and coherence throughout the paper. Once again, I thank you sincerely for your constructive critique, which has greatly contributed to the improvement of the manuscript. I hope the revised version addresses your concerns and meets the standards expected by the journal. Kind regards View more View less Competing Interests i have no any competing interest reply Respond Report a concern Osborne A. Peer Review Report For: Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 4 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169229.r367545) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v1#referee-response-367545 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Tsui A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 11 Oct 2024 | for Version 1 Amy O Tsui , Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA 0 Views copyright © 2024 Tsui A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Aim: The study pursues an important topic, i.e., to understand cognitive, affective and behavioral factors inhibiting the decision to use contraception among Middle Eastern (ME) women. In reality the level of use of modern contraceptive methods in many Middle Eastern countries is quite robust. According to the UN’s World Contraceptive Use database for 2022, the six ME counties selected for this study have modern contraceptive prevalence rates (mCPR) for married women of childbearing age ranging from 56.9% (Egypt) to 24.4% (Saudi Arabia). The mCPR usually maximizes at 80% (e.g., China, Sweden) which indicates that at least one-fifth of the eligible female population will not use at any given time (due to infecundity, seeking to become pregnant, non-exposure). Thus, while mCPR may be low in some countries, use is not trivial. Also there is considerable reliance on withdrawal (considered a traditional method). Design/Sample: The author relies on a convenience sample of 198 mothers attending clinics in Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The sample, in addition to being purposive, is small (33 women per setting) and cannot represent the range of contraceptive experiences in these countries. More justification is needed as to why these six countries are included and not others, such as Syria, Irban, Oman, Qatar. An 85% confidence interval is very large for estimating these barriers; what was the initial “p” value used to calculate the needed sample size? A p of 0.5 with an alpha of 0.05 usually needs around 500 sample units and this is for one population. Theoretical framework for the 3 barrier domains: How did the author decide on “cognitive”, “affective” and “behavioral” domains? The author should define what each domain represents. Analysis/Results: The question items in each domain set are plausible but require supporting literature. The Likert scale used has only 3 points and may not adequately differentiate a respondent’s attitude toward an item. In the study 1 = never, 2=sometimes, 3=always. Mean values between 2 and 3 dominate; only 2 out of the total 51 items have a mean below 2.0. Likert scales usually have 5 points (strongly agree, agree, neutral/undecided, disagree, strongly disagree). Even though a Cronbach’s alpha value is given (presumably for all 51 items), there should be 3 alpha values, one for each domain. Analytically, with a sufficient sample size, the responses could be analyzed with principal components analysis to see if the items do load onto three factors and confirm the labels given. The descriptive analysis of means is difficult to interpret. Discussion/Conclusions: This section should be limited to what has been empirically analyzed and not generalize beyond the findings. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Reproductive health behaviors I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 23 Aug 2025 Hawraa Ghafel , Doctor in Maternal and Neonate Nursing Department, College of Nursing, University of Baghdad, Bab Al-Mua’adham, 10011, Iraq Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed review of my manuscript. I truly appreciate the time and effort you devoted to providing constructive feedback, which has helped me significantly improve the quality and clarity of the study. Please find below my responses to your comments and the changes made accordingly: On modern contraceptive prevalence rates (mCPR): I fully acknowledge your observation regarding the relatively robust mCPR levels in several Middle Eastern countries. In the revised version, I have included data from the UN’s 2022 World Contraceptive Use database and emphasized that while modern contraceptive use exists at moderate to high levels in the selected countries, significant attitudes especially cognitive, affective, and behavioral—still influence non-use or inconsistent use among subgroups of women. This has been clarified in both the introduction and discussion sections to avoid any misleading generalizations. On the sample and country selection: I agree with your concern regarding the small, purposive sample. I have now added a detailed justification for the inclusion of Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, highlighting their contextual diversity in terms of contraceptive policies, healthcare systems, and sociocultural norms. I have also clarified the limitations of the convenience sampling approach and its implications for generalizability. Regarding the sample size, I have specified that the original calculation was based on a 0.5 estimated proportion with a 95% confidence level, but due to feasibility constraints and ethical approvals in clinical settings, a smaller sample was used. I have revised the confidence level discussions in the methodology section accordingly. On the theoretical framework (cognitive, affective, behavioral): I have now defined each domain clearly in the methodology section, based on relevant literature from health psychology and behavioral science. I have also added references supporting the rationale for attitudes under these three domains, which align with well-established models such as the Theory of Planned Behavior. On scale design and analysis: Based on your helpful feedback, I recognize the limitation of using a 3-point Likert scale. While it was initially chosen for simplicity and clarity among participants with varied educational backgrounds, I have now included this rationale in the methodology, along with a discussion of its potential limitations in the analysis section. Furthermore, I have provided separate Cronbach’s alpha values for each domain to reflect internal consistency more accurately. Due to sample size constraints, principal components analysis could not be conducted; however, I have noted this as a recommendation for future research with larger datasets. On discussion and conclusions: The discussion section has been carefully revised to ensure it reflects only what has been empirically analyzed. Overgeneralizations have been removed, and the conclusions are now more tightly grounded in the study's specific findings. Once again, I am sincerely grateful for your comments, which have contributed substantially to strengthening the manuscript. Please feel free to share any further thoughts or suggestions. Kind regards View more View less Competing Interests I have no any competing interest reply Respond Report a concern Tsui AO. Peer Review Report For: Middle Eastern Women’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding Family Planning Methods [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 4 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :898 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169229.r327613) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v1#referee-response-327613 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Middle Eastern Women\’s Attitudes and...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Ghafel HH'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898", templates : { twitter : "Middle Eastern Women\’s Attitudes and Practices Regarding.... Ghafel HH, published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/13-898/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/154232/183462") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "183462"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "424198": 0, "313092": 0, "424199": 0, "424196": 0, "424197": 0, "424194": 0, "313088": 0, "424195": 0, "313089": 0, "424192": 0, "313090": 0, "424193": 0, "313091": 0, "424200": 0, "424201": 0, "415846": 0, "415847": 0, "415844": 0, "415845": 0, "415842": 0, "415843": 1, "415840": 0, "415841": 0, "415848": 0, "415849": 0, "410230": 0, "412534": 0, "321140": 0, "410231": 0, "412535": 0, "321141": 0, "410228": 0, "412532": 0, "321142": 0, "410229": 0, "412533": 0, "321143": 0, "410226": 0, "410227": 0, "410224": 0, "410225": 0, "321139": 0, "412542": 0, "321148": 0, "412540": 0, "412541": 5, "412538": 0, "321144": 0, "412539": 0, "321145": 0, "410232": 0, "412536": 0, "321146": 0, "410233": 0, "412537": 0, "321147": 0, "407174": 0, "407175": 0, "407172": 0, "407173": 0, "407170": 0, "333185": 0, "407171": 0, "333184": 0, "407169": 0, "333186": 0, "407178": 0, "330121": 0, "407176": 0, "407177": 0, "330122": 0, "317092": 0, "398759": 0, "317093": 0, "317094": 0, "317095": 0, "317089": 0, "317090": 0, "317091": 0, "317096": 0, "317097": 0, "398760": 0, "317098": 0, "398761": 7, "367543": 0, "327612": 0, "324284": 0, "367549": 0, "324285": 0, "327613": 24, "367548": 0, "327614": 0, "324286": 0, "367551": 0, "327615": 0, "324287": 0, "367550": 0, "367545": 10, "367544": 8, "367547": 0, "327611": 0, "367546": 0, "324292": 0, "324293": 0, "324288": 0, "324289": 0, "367552": 0, "324290": 0, "324291": 0, "313084": 0, "313085": 0, "313086": 0, "313087": 0, "313083": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "cc825821-6584-4980-90ef-5abccc80ddfe"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });