Download PDFPDF

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 Response

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.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]
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:
    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.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    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.