Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,

Congratulations on completing the manuscript and conducting such an interesting study. However, the manuscript still needs some improvements. I have the following recommendations and suggestions to increase the value of your study.

The text uses vague and ambiguous terms that reduce the study's informational value; for example, "sometimes" is used in line 270. I request a thorough revision of the entire text and clarification of these terms. Additionally, I recommend reconsidering the use of strong expressions, such as "urgent" (line 317), in a scholarly article.

The text on lines 194–197 belongs in the discussion section. The same applies to the text on lines 207–210.

Many readers would find it useful to add specific dates, at least months and years. See lines 12 and 34, for example.

The conclusions presented in the abstract are too obvious ("assessment in Nigeria was severely affected") and should be replaced.

The introduction should conclude with a precise formulation of the research question and the main hypotheses.

Line 94 refers to "were aware," while line 100 refers to "reported knowledge." However, these two terms are usually defined differently, so please clarify.

The information in lines 88–89 repeats the information in line 47—please consider whether this repetition is necessary.

Specify how "unmet need" was measured. Relevant sources distinguish many ways of defining need, including unmet need. Therefore, it would be desirable to clarify this. Furthermore, briefly state whether the study distinguished between "needs" and "wants."

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article provides insight into how covid-19 altered access to contraceptives in Nigeria, which has applications for reproductive policy and for preparing for another crisis.

Its strength is that it uses national primary data, the statistical analysis is good, and it relates to the world literature.

Sampling, and generezability or external validity should be clarified in the material and methods.

Unexpected findings (such as that rural women have fewer unmet needs) need further and more thoughtful interpretation.  On the other hand, causal implications should be implied because it is a cross-sectional study. I also suggest that the policy discussion be broadened, with concrete implementation strategies.

Abstract

• Mention that the online convenience sampling may limit representativeness
• Make a clear distinction between what was directly observed in the study and what is extrapolated

Materials and Methods

•  
• Describe with more detail the pilot testing informed questionnaire refinement
• Explain how, in the regression models, the authors assessed multicollinearity among predictors.

Results

•  Explain if the proportion of traditional method users (line 191–197) is similar to  l pre-pandemic 
• Comment that confidence intervals for some subgroups in the  Logistic regression (Table 2) are wide
• Since this is a cross-sectional study, I strongly recommend including a directed acyclic graph (DAG) to clarify the assumed causal pathways between socio-demographic factors, barriers, and unmet contraceptive need. A DAG would help readers better understand the underlying assumptions guiding the regression models and identify potential sources of confounding. The authors can easily construct one using the free software DAGitty (https://dagitty.net/dags.html).
•  

• Discussion
  • The use of non-probability convenience sampling (lines 103–107) is understandable given the context but should be emphasized as a key limitation for generalizability (in the discussion). 
  • The explanation of rural residents reporting lower unmet need (lines 266–273) is speculative; this should be more cautiously 
  • The cross-sectional nature of the study (line 309–310) limits causal inference, and this point should be reiterated more strongly when discussing predictors .
  • The section on policy implications (lines 316–345) should include actionable recommendations for Nigeria (e.g., concrete strategies for integrating pharmacies into essential services)

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,

I would like to express my appreciation for your efforts to revise the manuscript. Your revisions demonstrate that you have carefully considered all of the comments, and you have adequately addressed these issues. After reviewing the updated manuscript, I am pleased to say that the revisions meet the expectations I set forth in my previous comments.

Sincerely,

The changes you made improved the clarity and overall impact of the study. The manuscript is now refined to a standard that effectively communicates the research findings and provides valuable insights to the field.