Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Perceptions of Firearms in a cohort of Women Exposed to Intimate
Partner Violence (IPV) in Central Pennsylvania
Version: 
0 
Date: 
29 Jun 2020
Reviewer: 
Daniel Adeyinka
Reviewer's report:
Perceptions in a cohort of Women Exposed to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
Reviewer: Daniel Adeyinka
I am pleased to review this manuscript "Perceptions in a cohort of Women
Exposed to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)" for BMC Women's Health. 
Importance of the study
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a public health problem that is negatively
impacting not only the women, but men, families, and communities. This study
adds to the few studies that show intersectionality of IPV and gun possession by
women in the context of self-defense in the United States. Given the paucity of
data on the subject-matter, I think this paper has a potential to contribute to
literature. Also, to my knowledge, no study has focused on central Pennsylvania.
However, I have some reservations. I have listed my comments below:
Comments to the authors
Title
The title is quite generic. The context of firearm is missing. It can be improved
by removing the abbreviation and stating the geographical area studied. 
Abstract
The overarching goal stated in abstract is misleading—" We designed this study
to better understand the impact of interpersonal trauma exposure and
demographic factors on firearm perceptions among a cohort of IPV-exposed
women." Impact connotes long-term effects associated with an action. There is
nothing in the result to suggest impact. As shown in the title, the focus is the
perception of these sub-group of women.
Introduction
* The introduction provides some good background, especially linking the study
with COVID-19 pandemic. However, it needs to be strengthened by
incorporating related policies and legislations on firearms and IPV.
* Page 4, line 36: The objective needs revision. If the question is to answer how?
Qualitative method is more suitable.
Methods
* Page 5, lines 17-22: "A randomly selected subset of 2,500 women were invited
to participate; surveys were received from 1,191 women from the clinical
sample."
o Knowing that IPV is a social issue, there could be selection bias arising from
recruiting participants from healthcare settings
o Also, the authors need to consider the effect of non-response bias in their study
— response rate is unacceptably low (47.6%).
* Page 5(lines 41)-page 6 (line 9): The data augmentation process is not clear. 
* Page 5, line 46: "(Sohal, Eldridge, and Feder 2007)" and Page 7, line 43: "
(Smith, Son et al. 2014)", —It is important to be consistent with referencing
style.
* Page 7, lines 36-46: This piece should be part of literature review, and better
suited in the introduction.
* What theoretical framework or model is guiding this study?
* How is adverse childhood experience measured?
* How is missing data treated?
Results 
* What motivated the categorization of variables such as age and race/ethnicity?
It would be nice to disaggregate race into White, Black, Latina, Indigenous etc
* Educational attainment is an important social determinant of health. Why is
educational status not considered in this study? It could be a strong confounder.
* Bivariate results are missing.
* What is the relationship status between the IPV victim and abuser?
* Summarize the goodness of fit of the statistical models.
Discussion
* The policy implications of the findings need to be extensively discussed.
* Discussion/conclusion seems unbalanced. It is generally agreed that females
are often the victims of IPV, occurring in 1 in 5 women. However, abuse of men
is a silent epidemic that is often overlooked, affecting 1 in 7 men in the US.
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (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 Publons upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registered at
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 Publons, 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. Publons may use the
Review Data to generate derivative metadata for the benefit of Publons and you
as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity of such information. For
example, Publons 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
Publons’ privacy policy 
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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.
No
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:
Acceptable
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.
No competing interest to declare
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.