Study of Attitude and Knowledge Toward Sexual Health among Postgraduate Medical Students

Sir, We appreciate the constructive feedback provided by the author for our study.[1] We value this opportunity to address the concerns raised and provide clarifications to enhance the understanding and implications of our findings. We do agree that the distribution of residents should not be in methodology but we were asked to give the same by one of the reviewers. Hence, it was included there. A 10% adjustment for nonresponse was not needed, as the number of postgraduate residents calculated as per the sample size were enrolled and they participated in the study. However, in medical research, it is common practice to adjust the calculated sample size to account for potential nonresponse, ensuring the study maintains adequate power despite missing data.[2] We had sought representation from all nonclinical streams but due to a smaller number of postgraduates in nonclinical disciplines and refusal of consent to participate by some, we could not include some disciplines. We do agree that stratified random sampling would have given proper representation of clinical and nonclinical disciplines. Line listing of all postgraduates was obtained from the PG section of the institute. However, we missed mentioning it in our methods. The investigator had done door to door data collection. All were medical graduates who completed the questionnaire and gave to the investigator. The questionnaire was not designed to test their knowledge on sexual health; hence, we do not feel that they had to search for answers on internet. Our results in fact also talk about the lacunae experienced by them. We used face and content validation with the experts and pretested the questionnaire and nonrelevant questions were omitted. Cronbach alpha was not calculated as the questionnaire included items on the knowledge, prior training, or skills of PG residents on sexual health. All the data were entered in Excel and Graph Pad was used for the statistical analysis. The study primarily focused on assessing overall knowledge, comfort, and training needs. Stratified analysis by year and specialty could add the valuable context and was not the scope of this study. However, it can be considered in future research. We acknowledge the critiques regarding generalizability and potential biases. We deeply appreciate the feedback and agree that it highlights areas for methodological and reporting improvements. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.