Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Quality of life, psychological distress and violence among women in close relationships: a 
population -based study in Finland  
 
Version: 0 Date: 22 Aug 2019  
 
Reviewer: Elizabeth And erson  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Thank you for this work on an important and understudied aspect of violence victimization. I 
hope my comment s are useful as you revise.  
 
 
Abstract  
 
Consider using women instead of females throughout  
Please clarify what strong associations your results refer to in the abstract. I assume you mean 
victims had worse QOL and mental health compared to non -victims but t his is not stated.  
 
Background  
 
Violence in close relationships is not interchangeable with IPV (line 87 -88) if you are also 
considering parent/child violence, etc. Consider giving a definition that distinguishes between 
different forms of violence  
 
Line 109 , consider discussing the Nordic paradox in this paragraph  
 
Line 136, this is an incomplete sentence, please revise  
 
Line 142, a stronger justification for excluding male victims is necessary. If you are interested in 
mental health outcomes, lower rate of p hysical injuries is not sufficient.  
 
Methods  
 
Line 169, "outcomes" is preferable to dependent variable  
 
Line 192, "predictors" is preferable to independent variable  
 
Line 194, If you only have information on violence in the past 12 months, you need to seriou sly  
reframe your introduction to acknowledge this and explain why recent violence is specifically 
associated with worse QOL (compared to experiences from &gt;1 year past). Your ability to call 
those who answered "no" non -victims is tenuous, especially give n the broad age range of the 
population and the high lower limit (19). I have no issue with the categorizations.  
 
Line 272 -273, please rephrase explanation of 0.05 cutoff  
 
Results  
 
Line 293 contains typos  
 
Line 321, sensitivity analyses need to be described in methods section  
 
Line 323 -324, please expand on what you mean. Are these analyses available in a table or  
appendix?  
 
Discussion  
 
Line 360 -365, the public health implications of your study need to be stren gthened and made 
more specific; also, consider removing use of the collective "we"  
 
Line 382 -386, I find this very confusing. Perhaps some of this justification needs to go in your 
methods. Additionally, given that your data are cross sectional and that you  only consider 
victims, it is not necessarily appropriate to state that violence is caused by substance abuse 
(seems more likely that perpetrators are using drugs inappropriately). Since you found that 
victims are engaged in more substance use, perhaps con sider discussing self -medication 
following victimization. Additionally, if cannabis use is associated with committing violence, 
please justify better.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional s tatistical 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 la nguage 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, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares i n an organisation t hat 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 receive d 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 that I have no competing interests'  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publi cation, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the websi te 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 name d report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal