Healthcare

1. Revisions Table
Reviewer 1
No. Comments/suggestions Revision/correction
Page
number
1
Through editing and rephrasing is necessary
to make the English more polished.
Recommend copy editing.
Making the English more polished, a
thorough editing and rephrasing were
done.
1-17
2
Rewriting the abstract is recommended.
The abstract was rewrote. 1
3
Oversized introduction that may splitted up
and make a separate section to accommodate
the literature review and related arguments.
Introduction section splitted and
literature review section newly added.
2-3
4
Figure 4 under the section 3.3 requires more
clarification on how the data has been
obtained as it is not clear now and it requires
some description. More comments can be
seen in the attached manuscript.
Figure 4 under the section 3.3 made
more clarification on how the data has
been obtained and some description has
also given.
11
5
Methodology section requires more
attention.
Methodology section revised according
to the comments in the text.
4-6
6
Arguments and data analysis are not clearly
expressed or discussed. Can’t synchronize
data with description.
Arguments and data analysis were
clearly expressed and discussed
sequentially
7-15
7
It is not a reader friendly document as no
clear sequence in writing style and step-by-
step analysis is found in this document.
The manuscript made reader friendly and
rewrote sequentially and analyzed step
by step
1-16
8
Some citation used in the article but not
presented in the reference section. Author(s)
need to be very careful about this.
Missing citation added in the references
and a new citation and reference also
added.
16-17

2. Reviewer 2
No. Comments/suggestions Revision/correction
Page
number
1 The abstract should be re-written
2
The conceptual framework and research gaps
are not clear at all. It needs to be written.
3
The specific objectives should be separately
written.
4
The basis of selecting urban poor and slum
areas should be clarified.
5
Sampling procedure should be elaborately
mentioned.
6
Recent works should be inserted in
references.
7
English is very poor. You are highly
recommended to re-check the full paper by a
language expert.
8
Address all the comments in the texts.

3. Reviewer 3
No. Comments/suggestions Revision/correction
Page
number
1
It seems that the author analyzed the data collected
from households, KII and SGD together. However, It
is not the similar kind of data collected from three
different sources. This seems to be a major problem in
data analysis. This is not logical either (Pls see in
Table 2).
Similar kinds of data were
collected from three different
sources. Table 1 and Table 2’s
data presentations are explained
at the bottom of each Table.
7,
8-9
2
In Table1, the way the author presented the data is not
logical. For Example, respondents’ mean age in years
was shown in a range like 41-50. This cannot be the
mean age of the respondents. Again, house type was
shown as mean, maximum and minimum, which is not
the way of explanation. This cannot be a logical
explanation of house type. On the other hand,
individual slum level, was shown as semi brick, semi
brick and semi brick; which was added to grand total
as non-brick. How is it possible? Similar problem was
found in cases of other variables like occupation,
educational qualification, etc. Thus, the papers data
were not explained logically.
Table 1 and Table 2’s data
presentations are explained at
the bottom of each Table.
7,
8-9
3
The overall findings of the paper are good, simple and
explained well. The findings go with similar studies
elsewhere in Bangladesh. The methodology of
collecting data is also well. However, the presentation
of data is not logically done.
Presentation of data is logically
done
1-15
4
Language to be edited properly. There are problems
in constructing some of the sentences. I think the
Editorial Board will take care of this. References are
not very rich, limited literature reviews and the
theoretical framework for this paper is absent. The
paper presents some findings on healthcare services of
the poor people in Chittagong City. That’s it. The
findings are good. But the presentation is not very
standard.
The language was edited by
Grammerly software. Some
new references were added
2-3
16-17
5
The Pie charts shown in the paper are too big. This
should be reconstructed. There are some unusual
signs in some these figures should also be removed.
The Tables should be logically prepared again. The
abstract of the paper was written well, the key words
are also chosen well.
Pie charts and figures revised 8-15