<p><strong>Background</strong>: Would be better to mention the magnitude of the gap so that the reader can appreciate the size of the gap and see whether it really worth a study to close it. The phrase "<i>We determined</i>" should read as "we assessed or evaluated"</p><p><strong>Methods</strong>: Study period not mentioned. Sampling didn't mention about rural Vs urban, and Private Vs Public facilities representation. These affect testing rates. Data collection method not mentioned</p><p><strong>Results</strong>: Why a positivity yield of 27.5% (n=1,736) was achieved from 3,991 contacts while contacts accepted the test were 3,899. (i.e. Why the number received testing is higher than the number accepted testing). Mention the overall positivity yield before breaking it down into groups. Presentation of the results needs to be revisited to make it clearer especially in breaking down the positivity yields. For example a sentence "<i>Mixed method tracking yielded 46.7% (n=349) positivity from a testing rate of 99.5% (n=748) in an urban setup, with 41.4% (n=1,243) preferring health worker referrals". This is clear that 349 tested positive out of 748. The question now is who are these 1,243? are these still part of 748? which is very unlikely, or from all received the testing? not very clear to the reader. The word "first tester" in the results should read as "first-time tester"</i></p><p><i><strong>Conclusion and recommendations</strong>: Recommendations are too general, while there were clear differences in positivity yields among different groups as presented in the results. Recommendations should tell us what to do to close the gap you mentioned in the background based on the results.</i></p>