Reviewer’s report
Title:  "It happens to clinicians too": An Australian prevalence study of intimate partner and family
violence against health professionals.
Version: 0 Date: 15 Dec 2016
Reviewer: Janet Lynn Fanslow
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. It provides interesting and useful information on
the  prevalence  of  violence  experience  among  health  professionals,  which  has  relevance  both  to
employers, and to the care that health providers can be expected to provide to others.
The methods are appropriate and well described. 
My main recommendation for strengthening the article further would be for the authors to: 
a) expand on the implications and/or recommendations that they see arise from their findings.  The
final sentence hints at "significant ramifications" from the findings, yet these are not described.  I agree
with the general point, but would like to see further discussion provided.  This could take several
directions, e.g., care or counselling services offered to employees;  the need for education sessions on
health care response to victims to allow sufficient options and pathways for those who are currently
experiencing violence, those who have experienced violence in the past, etc.  I am sure the authors will
have other thoughts on what the implications might be, and I would very much like to see these further
described. 
b) have a further careful and considered read through, checking for grammatical errors and clarity of
expression. There are a couple of places where the wording is awkward or unclear. I list these below. 
Page 2, lines 47-48. Wording is awkward
Page 2. Line 49. Might be helpful to have a further description of the methods used for the literature
search, and what qualifies as "extensive". 
Page 4, line 78. Use of 'qualifies' seems slightly odd, consider replacing with "groups"
Page 4, lines 85-89.  These sentences seem tacked on, and are awkwardly described. I understand
the point of measuring other experiences of violence that participants may have had, but think
the concepts and measurement strategy  could be more clearly introduced and described. 
Page 5, line 107.  What does 'non-conditional' mean in this context?
P 5, line 113.  Really 1047 female clinical staff, or 1047 total?  You describe later how the males
were not included. 
P5, line 116. Representative, rather than 'representational'?
P8, line 165.  Check grammar please. 
P9. Line 174-5.  Suggest rewording as: Males perpetrated the majority of the violence described by
participants. 
P9, lines 185-187. Consider rewording this sentence to improve  clarity and flow. 
P 10, lines 210-215.  Implications of this?  Please expand.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does 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.
Yes
Are 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 further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being published
Declaration 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 this 
manuscript, 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 that I have no competing interests.
I 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 report including 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 comments to the editors, which will not
be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal