You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 7, Issue 10
  • Rubella virus infection and associated factors among pregnant women attending the antenatal care clinics of public hospitals in Hawassa City, Southern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study

Responses

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Infectious diseases
Research
Rubella virus infection and associated factors among pregnant women attending the antenatal care clinics of public hospitals in Hawassa City, Southern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 15 December 2017
    Re: Not a random sample
    • Biniam Tamirat, Microbiologist Southern Nation and Nationalities People’s Regional Health Bureau, Hawassa, Ethiopia
    • Other Contributors:
      • Siraj Hussen, Lecturer
      • Techalew Shimelis, PhD student

    Dear Dr Peter,
    Thank you so much for your interest and comment.
    The study population consisted of both new pregnant women and those on follow-up of antenatal care clinic (ANC). Yes, it appears that new pregnant women attended ANC in random order. However, pregnant women who were on ANC follow-up visited the clinic on their schedule date. Thus, we assumed there was some pattern to their attendance of the clinic. In order to increase the chance of including women from different schedule dates and avoid clustered selection, we preferred to use a systematic random sampling than convenient sampling.
    Best,
    Techalew

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on: 20 October 2017
    Not a random sample
    • Peter O'Halloran, Senior Lecturer School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast

    Thank you for an interesting paper. The authors claim that women were selected using a systematic random sampling technique. However, their report states that 'The first served pregnant woman and every second woman thereafter were invited to participate in the study until the required sample size was obtained.' This assumes that the women attended the clinic in random order. I they did attend in random order, then selecting every woman consecutively would produce an equally random sample. If there was some pattern to their attendance, then this is not a random sample. I think it would be more accurate to say that this was a convenience sample.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.