Reviewer’ s report
Title: Improving the Response of Primary Care Providers to Rural First Nation Women who
Experience Intimate Partner Violence: A Qualitative Study
Version: 0Date: 15 Mar 2020
Reviewer's report:
Reviewers Feedback
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to review this paper describing the results of a
qualitative study Using what appears to be a convenience sample of 31 service providers. Theauthors collected data using both individual face to face (n =2) and (n=4) focus group interviews.This is a very important study as there is currently a dearth of research exploring the views andexperiences of service providers in primary care settings who attempt to provide care to ruralIndigenous women who experience IPV.
The methodology chosen appears to be appropriate for the study aims and objectives
The analysis, which purportedly followed a grounded theory approach, however, it is not clearwhat grounded theory approach was undertaken to analysis the data.
The introduction/background could have enhanced by a discussion or an overview of the current
health care system, whether staff are offered any training or education in the particular area,whether patients are routinely screened or asked about a history of IPV.There is no discussion about family violence, or why the authors have only chosen to look atpartner violence.
Design
Page 6, Line 47 - 49: how many community members and which organisations did the researchteam work during the research? And how where the comments and feedback incorporated into theresearch design.
Page 8 Line 29, why were two interviews conducted with two participants and then the reminder
focus groups?
Data Analysis
Page 8,line 39: what GT approach was undertaken to analysis the interviews?
Results
Page 11: Diagram is not clear in the version given to review, some of the wording of the themes isnot visible for the reader.
Page 12, line 19, under theme 1 researchers discuss First Nations and non-First Nations women
experiencing IPV was women's reluctance to disclose, the paper states the theme of the paper is
rural First Nation Women, therefore the data should only come from this particular group. The
authors should be it clear that all has come from the one participant group.
Page 19 Line 23: theme 6 'Uncertainty how to negotiate cultural safety and IPV' currently only
has one quote beside it, yet it requires more to confirm to the reader that this an emerging theme.My understanding that would be a large factor for the care providers and that more data wouldhave emerged from the data analysis. One quote from one care provider does not make a themeregardless of the topic. This is the same for theme 7, only quote from one provider is used tosupport the theme.
I would like to suggest whether the paper's structure within the findings section could be improved
by situating the themes could sit under three main themes, 1, systematic difficulties, 2, providers,3, women?
Discussion
Page 25: line 39, 'Some providers suggest using universal screening, this was visible in thefindings section, but is a very important point. Suggest researchers include this in the findingssection - allowing for further exploration in discussion section.
Overall a well written paper which would be of interest to the readers of BMC which highlights
the needs of particular group of women. There are some gaps in the paper that require some furtherclarification prior to publication.
importantly, in the paper itself, there is no mention of ethical approval for the study. The
information is contained in the participant information sheet but not in the methods section of thepaper, introduction or abstract.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
NoDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
YesAre you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscript
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
AcceptableDeclaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of thismanuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare I have no competing interestsI agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named reportincluding any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons
CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal