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: 17 Apr 2017
Reviewer: Sheila Sprague
Reviewer's report:
General Comments:
*The authors have conducted a study look at the prevalence rates of various types of violence
towards  health  care  professionals.   This  is  an  important  area  of  research  given  that  health  care
professionals are often in positions to provide help to victims of violence.
*Overall there are some inconsistencies in terminology used making it confusing for the reader
(e.g. terms to describe DV , and violence perpetrated by someone other than an intimate partner or
family member).  Additionally, sometimes "survivors" is used and other times victim/survivors is used.
*The many slashes used throughout the paper are distracting to the flow of the paper when
reading.
* Consistent phrasing should be used for all terms to add clarity.
*The study title and abstract focus on IPV and family violence, however, the paper also appears
to focus on violence from non-intimate partners or family members.  The focus should be clarified, or
if non-intimate partner or family violence is a secondary question this should also be clarified.
Abstract:
*In the abstract, the main outcome measures are listed as IPV, FV , and sexual violence.  IPV and
FV speak to who perpetrates the violence, and sexual violence is a form of violence that can be
perpetrated by an intimate partner, a family member, or someone else.  To be consistent the authors
should list violence perpetrated by someone other than an intimate partner or family member as an
outcome as opposed to sexual violence.
Introduction:
*The authors should review the terminology.  Domestic violence is an umbrella term for violence
that occurs in the home.  It includes both IPV and family violence, although is often used to refer to
IPV .  Because the authors' paper is looking at both IPV and FV, it would add clarity to use IPV instead
of DV .
*It may be more applicable to an international audience to site global prevalence rates for IPV
and FV in your introduction as opposed to UK prevalence rates.
*The sentence that reads: `Survivors present to health care services very frequently, and at
particular times in their life, like pregnancy, when there are increased risks for the impact of violence".
This sentence is unclear and should be rephrased for clarity.  Does this sentence mean that survivors are
more likely to present to health care services when they are pregnant?.  The authors should also
quantify what "frequently" means.  
*Citations should be provided for the barriers that are referred to.   There are a number of papers
looking at barriers to IPV screening and assistance in health care settings.  
*A citation should also be provided for personal experiences of DV being a barrier.  If not
citation is available, this should be rephrased to be a hypothesis.  
*The authors should clarify whether the prevalence rates presented for the 11 studies identified in
the literature search are lifetime prevalence rates.
*It seems out of place to discuss the US study.  It would strengthen the introduction if the authors
mentioned whether or not any of these studies looked at Australian populations and focussed on
justifying  what  this  study  adds  to  the  existing  literature  (e.g.  does  it  overcome  identified
methodological shortcomings, look at it in an Australian sample for the first time, etc.).
*Suggest that the authors delete the sentence that begins with "Another feature of these studies
is…" as it seems out of place.
*The authors state that the purpose of the study is to "address a gap in the available evidence
about exposure to DV/FV amongst female health professionals and its implications".  This does not
seem to fit with what was done in the study.  For example, the results indicate that some men were
included in the sample, additionally, the study also presents results for violence perpetrated by non-
intimate partners and non-family members.  The study also does not investigate the implications of this
violence, this is just discussed in the discussion section of the paper.
Methods:
*In the methods section you state a previous study by Hegarty et al., found 42% of Australian
nurses had experienced violence by a partner.  This should be cited in the introduction and the authors
should include rationale for why their study is needed given a similar study was conducted.
*It is not clear how the CAS category of "severe combined abuse" differs from the category
"physical abuse combined with emotional abuse and/or psychological violence).  The authors should
clarify this.
*The authors should include the wording for the questions that asked about FV and violence that
was perpetrated by someone other than an intimate partner or family member.
*It is not clear if men were included in the study.
*There is a typo in the last section of the methods.  "Data was imported" should be changed to
"Data were imported" as data is a plural.
*There is no statistical analysis section.  The authors need to present a description of how they
analyzed their data.
Results:
*It is a strength of the study that the authors have demonstrated that their sample is comparable
to the overall hospital population, and the population of Australian health care professionals.
*I suggest that the authors exclude the information on intimate relationship status in the last
column of table 1 since this relationship is not specific to health care professionals.  Also it is unclear
why the percentages sum to over 100% for this variable.
*There is a lot of information and percentages in the results section that makes the paper difficult
to read.  The large amount of detail presented in the results section text also obscure the overall
messaging at times.  For example, types of violence is broken down into many different combinations
of violence.  It may add clarity if prevalence results were presented for each type of violence, severe
combined violence, and overall IPV .
*In table 2 should the last column be titles "adult lifetime prevalence".
Discussion:
*Should the last sentence in the first paragraph read "the similar prevalence among ours and the
clinical sample…"?
*The  authors  should  propose  possible  explanations  for  why  their  findings  differ  from  the
previous research cited.
*The discussion focusses on summarizing the results, however, this section could probably be
shortened in order to include more discussion for the implications of these results and an explanation of
what this study adds to the literature.
*The authors mention the 45% response rate as a strength, however, this should be listed as a
limitation given that the majority of individuals invited to complete the survey chose not to.  The
authors should include a discussion of how this limitation may have impacted their results, and why
this is not a fatal flaw to the study.
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.
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 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