Reviewer’s report
Title:  "It happens to clinicians too": An Australian prevalence study of intimate partner and family
violence against health professionals.
Version: 1 Date: 29 Sep 2017
Reviewer: Sheila Sprague
Reviewer's report:
Thank you to the authors for taking the time to address these comments.  I believe these changes have
contributed to a stronger manuscript.  However, I still have a few comments that I feel are important to
address prior to publication:
1. The terminology in the manuscript is still confusing in places in regards to intimate partner violence,
family violence, and domestic violence.  I would encourage the authors to carefully consider the term
used in each instance.  I recommend that the authors use intimate partner violence when referring to
violence by a partner, family violence when referring to violence perpetrated by a non-intimate partner
family member, and domestic violence when the authors are referring to both.  Alternatively, the
authors could just write "intimate partner violence and family violence" in these cases.  Examples of
where there in confusion in terms includes:
*In lines 41 to 43, the authors define DV but use the definition for IPV , even though the
preceding sentence states that DV will be used to refer to IPV and FV .
*I suggest the authors also define FV in the background section, and provide relevant statistics
for FV based on previous literature.  
*In the results section (specifically lines 175 to 180) the authors state the results for their analysis
investigating  the  association  between  various  demographic  variables  and  IPV  and  FV.
However, this is under the results heading "prevalence of IPV since the age of sixteen".  I
suggest the authors present these results (line 175 to 180) in a separate section with its own
header.
*Additionally, instead of saying IPV, the terms "partner violence" (line 253) or "violence by a
partner" (line 188) are used at times throughout the manuscript.  I suggest being consistent and
using IPV throughout for clarity.
2. The objectives of the manuscript are still confusing to the reader as all objectives are not stated
clearly in one place.  For example:
*The  purpose  in  the  abstract  excludes  the  objectives  of  assessing  violence  by  a  non-
partner/family  member,  as  well  as  the  objective  of  assessing  the  association  between
demographic variables and lifetime IPV and FV.  Perhaps the abstract should state "primary
purpose" or include all objectives.   
*The purpose of the study is stated in lines 79 to 81, however, the purpose of assessing the
association  between  demographic  variables  and  lifetime  IPV and  FV is  not  stated.   This
information should be included.  It may also help the reader if the authors clarify which
objectives are primary, and which are secondary.
3. The authors should proof read their manuscript again for spelling and grammar as there is a typo and
a few unclear sentences:
*Line 59 - "A extensive" should be "An extensive".
*Line 71 to 73 - awkward phrasing.  Should "substantially increased rates to that of the general
community"  instead  be  "substantially  higher  rates  than  those  identified  in  the  general
community"?
*Line 78 - is "first language" the right word choice when referring to a country.  Maybe "official"
language instead?
*Line 86 to 87 - the abbreviation for IPV is defined here, however, this is not its first use.
*Lines 213 to 216 - the wording in this sentence is awkward and confusing.  It is unclear what
they authors are trying to convey.
*Lines 232 to 234 - are you referring just to the perpetrators of "other violence".  If so, family
should not be listed.  If you are also referring to other forms of violence (e.g. IPV or FV), this
should be clarified.
4. The authors should explicitly state that they are measuring lifetime prevalence of FV and "other
violence" in the methods section. 
5. I would begin the results section titled "prevalence of IPV during the last 12 months" more broadly
by stating 11.5% of the sample reported fear of partner or some form of IPV.  Then go on to specify the
percentages for each category specifically.  This provides the "take-home" message first (similar to how
you organize the paragraph for the lifetime prevalence).
6. Given that over half of the individuals who were contacted about the survey did not respond, the
authors should discuss the potential for nonresponse bias.  The authors should consider how this could
impact their results and whether conclusions may be overstated.  For example, in lines 207 to 208 when
they say "Our study shows that intimate partner and/or family violence, including sexual assault, are
common trauma…", it may be more appropriate to use the word "suggests" instead of "shows".  I
recommend this change is made in the conclusion section as well.
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 recommend additional statistical review
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