Title: Domestic violence in Indian women: lessons from nearly 20 years of surveillance
Version: 1 Date: 08 Nov 2021
Reviewer:  Angela Taft
Reviewer's report:
DV in Indian women: 20 year surveillance
This an important analysis of very limited reporting data, and fraught with difficulties. But it
does make an important contribution to the understanding of the ways in which violence against
women (VAW) is currently being neglected in India.
I commend the authors, but also suggest ways in which it could be made clearer to the audience
if not in India or familiar with Indian VAW epidemiology.
Background
The background is brief and to the point. The section ends with a good segue to the next section
with the aim to analyse the reporting of DV in this data set as it is the major national source
of surveillance. Can you pls mention whether any training of police is undertaken to respond
to reports of DV? In any state?
1. L49. Your reference is 2013. I think you need to correct the date in this opening para and you
could mention the significant impact on all aspects of women’s health for readers of this journal.
2. L 60 on. Consider whether this might go earlier. Even at the end of your first paragraph, as it
is important, as this is a very late law compared with many countries.
Methods
3. L.76 Suggest adding ‘incident’ after any domestic violence, which is…
4. L.79. Suggest heading rather than ‘head’ not a commonly understood term if you mean a label
for the type of DV
5. It is not entirely clear whether these terms are official ones and the NCRB has definitions,
or that these are yours in consultation. If they are the latter, can you please explain how NCRB
characterises differences and how ‘abetment of suicide’ is better defined. Abetment usually
means assisting in the suicide. So where are completed female suicides (without assistance)
included, as I have just read analyses of the limitation and under-reporting of suicides in the
NCRB. The very fact of their definitions is vital for any critique of how robust reporting is for
the rigorous reporting of DV.
6. Data extraction – you extrapolate that there is a one-to-one correlation for cases and victims
from recent reports. You need to comment on this in your discussion and suggest that women
be given numbers so that in future if there are multiple cases reported by the one women or of
the same perpetrator, this is recorded accurately.
7. You say that individual level data are not reported. Yet this article below compares the socio-
demographic data of reporting of NCRB with the GBD data. Can you pls explain for the reader
how you extracted these comparisons more clearly?
Estimating patterns in the under-reporting of suicide deaths in India: comparison of
administrative data and Global Burden of Disease Study estimates, 2005-2015. Arya V,
Page A, Armstrong G, Kumar GA, Dandona R.J Epidemiol Community Health. 2020 Nov
30:jech-2020-215260. doi: 10.1136/jech-2020-215260.
8. Also how you extracted only 15 to 49 year-olds, or did you compare these to all reports in the
NCRB? Please outline your rate calculations more clearly please.
Results
9. I have no comment
Discussion
The Discussion makes many excellent points about the inadequacies of these data.
10. You could make a stronger statement about what you have found in this opening paragraph.
These data are very timely and significant. It is remarkable how different the rates among
headings are and the trends, while you could also be advocating great caution because of the
under-reporting and the presumed lack of training for reporters and the shame of suicide?
11. L.200 It is important to be consistent about the fact you are commenting on ‘reported’ rates
only. So your comment ‘ the almost stagnant rate’ should be the almost stagnant ‘reported ‘
rate etc
12. L. 211. Please define FIR
13. L. 216. Why not add cited references for the surveys should readers want to compare.
14. It would really help to have some subheadings in the Discussion even if they are comments
related to the terms, but it would be better to include formal vs self-report survey data or the
limitations of legal recourse and formal systems
15. L 276 ‘ pls add ‘or’ many cases are not investigated OR are dropped…
16. L 282 . Please add a limitations heading and be extensive in how you caution the reader to
interpret these data.
17.  Conclusions. I encourage you to be much more specific in how these data could be improved
and how recorders might need to be trained etc.
A very important study, well done.