Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Impacts of COVID-19 on family violence in Thailand: prevalence and
factor-influencers
Version: 
1 
Date: 
02 Jan 2023
Reviewer: 
Carinne Brody
Reviewer's report:
Der Authors, I can see you have done a lot of work on this study and have some
important findings. There are some major areas in need of improvement before
publication:
1.) Your statistical analysis stops short of using regression to understand these
relationships. 
This is an important next step given the various confounding
factors at play. We cannot understand all the associations without controlling for
relevant variables.
2.) You qualitative analysis does not follow a systematic approach. 
I do not see
the use of a codebook, or even a report out of codes/themes in the results section.
How were the results organized? Four focus groups should yield some lengthy
transcripts but we are only able to see selected quotes. 
It is also unclear how
these quotes interplay with your quantitative results. For example, your survey
asks about types of abuse but does not include child abuse which was something
that seemed to come out strongly in the qualitative findings. Was the interview
only asking respondents to report on violence they had experienced or were they
permitted to report on other household members? 
3.) It is unclear how you are able to make this comparison in your discussion
section: "The prevalence of family violence in Thailand was shown to have
increased from 34.6% (B.E. 2017) to 42.2% (B.E. 2021)". Where is this data
coming from? How do we know we can use this as an appropriate comparison?
You mention in your introduction that rates vary across the nation. Do you see
regional differences in your data? It seems like region would be an important
consideration in your regression model. Is your data or the comparator
considered a nationally-representative statistic?
4.) Your tables are a bit confusing and need more labelling of columns so readers
can understand what is being compared or presented. I am not sure what Table 4
is displaying - the differences between your baseline and 6 month survey? This
is not made clear in your table title or labels. 
5.) There is very little discussion about how violence seems to have decreased
between your first and second surveys as displayed in Table 3 (although without
controlling for confounding factors it is hard to say if this is really the case). The
6 mos survey results show rates even lower than 2017. What other macro factors
have changed? Did the qualitative data give any insights on this?
6.) There is a need for significant copyediting.
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 that I have no competing interests
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my
report.
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Web of Science Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification
of this review directly to a Web of Science researcher profile (a subsidiary of
Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, please
click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email address, title of the reviewed
manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review submission (the
“Review Data”) will then be transmitted to Web of Science after the final
decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have already registered with
Web of Science for a 
Web of Science researcher profile (this service was
previously known as “Publons”), they will notify you of the receipt of this
review and update your profile as per your settings and their policy. If you are
not registered with Web of Science, you will receive an email from them asking
you to register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Web of Science may use the Review Data to generate derivative
metadata for the benefit of Web of Science and you as a reviewer, carefully
considering the sensitivity of such information. For example, Web of Science
may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile published on its
webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors to identify
candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing in Web of Science’s
privacy policy 
https://clarivate.com/privacy-center/notices-policies/privacy-
policy/
No