Title: Prevalence and factors associated with Intimate Partner Violence among women in
Tanzania: Evidence from Tanzanian Demographic and Health Survey 2022
Version: 4 Date: 20 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper.
Abstract
Conclusion: Whereas the alcohol control efforts can be linked to the results, I am not sure
how this “The government should implement community-based educational programs to raise
awareness about IPV” conclusion is aligned to your results. You may consider rewording it to
make the connection (if it exists) clear.
Introduction
Overall comment: Kindly consider rewriting this section to give it flow and make a case for
your study
Page 2: The phrase “The WHO has identified the limited data on IPV ” is not clear. Things could
have changed given that you cite a 2010 WHO document authored 15 years ago. Moreover, it
does not connect with the subsequent sentence which gives findings of a study in Kenya
Page 3: “In many societies, there is a belief that IPV against women is a demonstration of love
and a means of imparting discipline”. Consider replacing the word many with some, otherwise
the statement could be misleading (3 studies may not be a representation of the entire SSA)
Page 3: Kindly consider rewriting the paragraph beginning with “The prevalence of IPV in
Tanzania is concerning.........” It is a lengthy mix up of many things which do not flow. Also,
consider attaching timelines to the statistics you present to help the reader understand the context.
For example, saying that the 50% estimate is from 2014 or 2015 TDHS helps. When you talk
of inconsistencies in IPV prevalence in Tanzania, I was looking forward to reading more about
this but instead you jump right into contributing factors
Methods
Page 5&6: You may consider presenting the variables in a table format for ease of reference
Independent variables: I am not sure what informed the collapsing of all marital status categories
into two (in union and not in union). Separation or divorce is sometimes an outcome of persistent
IPV exposure
I believe computing both lifetime (ever) prevalence and IPV experience within the last 12 months
preceding the survey would enrich this paper.
Data analysis: Collinearity tests check for correlation between variable not interaction
Results
Page 7: Consider quoting the proportions without adding other statements especially when the
statements misrepresent the statistics. For example, “Over a quarter (37.9%) were from Lake
zone, with more than half (63.8%) were employed”, about 38% is way more than a quarter leave
alone a third
Page 8: Table 1 under “Characteristics of husband/partner”, whose I IPV experience is being
referred to here?
Page 9: “The distribution of IPV across the country reflect the literature and even our further
analysis in table 3.” What does this statement mean?
Figure 1: It is not clear what the red dots/boxes denote? Is this a hit/density map?? If yes, how
did you arrive at this? By computing prevalence for each EA??” You may want to include this
in the methods and improve on figure labelling
The subheading “Factors associated with IPV among women of reproductive age”, is quite
confusing given the content below it. As a reader, I would have expected to see the associated
factors here and not the IPV prevalences. You may consider presenting the IPV prevalence by
participant characteristics in a separate table for clarity or relabelling table 2 to be consistent
with what is presented
Page 12: Table 3: It seems all variables in the bivariate analysis were included in the model.
What criteria was used in selecting variables for inclusion?
Discussion
General comment: I would recommend rewriting this section to focus on discussing the results
in an in-depth manner and having a separate recommendations section for flow and clarity. The
current format of presenting the findings, comparing/contrasting them with other studies and
then giving a recommendation/conclusion for each finding introduces segmentation to the work.
Moreover, contextualizing the findings to the Tanzanian setting by providing explanations to
the findings would highly improve this section.
Page 13: The statement “significantly exceeding the global average of 30” gives the impression
that you conducted a test for significance; please reword
“The other study which included 11 Eastern Africa countries reported the collective IPV
prevalence of 43.7%”, which data was used? If DHS 2022, Why the 10% difference for
Tanzania?
Page 14: “In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, results indicated a significant
association between numerous factors and a higher likelihood of experiencing IPV. Women
who are not currently in union, women who were working and women whose husband/partner
consumes alcohol had a higher likelihood of experiencing IPV compared to their counterparts.
Conversely, attaining secondary education and higher (44–46), and residing in the southern
zones were protective factors associated with experiencing IPV.”   This feels like a repetition
of the findings instead of discussing them. The focus in the discussion section should be to give
possible explanations as to why the results are as they are.
The paragraph beginning with “ Women not living in marital union.....”, needs paraphrasing with
a better review of literature on the association between marital status and  IPV. For instance, since
you are looking at lifetime IPV, could it be possible that these women are not in unions having
left due to IPV? There are only two categories under union and those not in union includes those
who are divorced and separated. I am not sure about your take on married and cohabiting means
especially in the East Africa setting whereby we have many couples living together (cohabiting)
as husband and wife who consider themselves married only that it is not by law (including
customary). Given the 2 categories you use for marital status, it would be good to bear this in
mind as you compare and contrast your findings with other regions globally.
Page 15: The statement “This may potentially be explained by the fact that some men may resent
women who challenge the status quo, .......” does not tie with the previous one. Does men’s
resentment of educated women lead to less IPV exposure?
Page 17: Conclusion: A lot of the recommendations and conclusions contained in the discussion
section could be condensed and synthesised to enrich this section.