Title: Associations between infant and young child feeding (IYCF) practice and attitudes toward
intimate partner violence (IPV) in Timor-Leste
Version: 0 Date: 27 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
General considerations:
The study is appropriate, technically sound. Your claims were supported by the data.
In the Methods, the description is clear and adequate for the study.
Statistical analysis is adequate and transparent, and its data allows the analysis will be
understand, allowing its reproduction in the academic community.
The claims are pertinent with the previous literature, but I reinforce that they do not leave the
sentences loose without a discussion with the results of the study. It is not appropriate to produce
a literature review in the discussion section.
Use double line spacing, check references.
Include line numbering.
Major problems:
Abstract
I do not suggest using abbreviations (IPV; IYCF; AOR). The text must be written in a way that
anyone can understand right from the beginning what the article is about.
Introduction
There is a lack of justification as to why this study was necessary or its contribution to the field.
I suggest writing contributions to the literature.
Results
In table 2 there are missing, because it does not close in 1,854 respondents. It is necessary to
expose the losses and explain why.
In “The cOR of acceptable IYCF for mothers who made four or more ANC visits was 1.79
(95%CI 1.13-2.75) in relation to those who did not”, in table 4, the cOR is 1.76 and not 1.79.
Check and correct.
In “The aOR of acceptable IYCF for mothers who disagreed that a husband is justified in
using IPV in all circumstances was 1.51 (95% 1.09-2.09)” by Table 4 the CI is 1.11-2 .06, not
1.09-2.09. Check and correct.
In “The aOR of acceptable IYCF for mothers who worked outside the home was 1.48 (95%CI
1.16-1.96) compared to those who did not work” by table 4 the CI is 1.12-1, 96, not 1.16-1.96.
Check and correct.
Minor issues:
Abstract
In the summary results, the passage: “thus, 15.0% practiced acceptable IYCF” is not the
conclusion of the two previous results. It would be necessary to rewrite this passage clearly and
concisely. Only after reading the full article is this excerpt understood.
Introduction
The information that "no studies in Timor-Leste have analyzed the associations between
acceptable IYCF and women's attitudes towards IPV, using women's attitudes" is repetitive in
more than one paragraph. There is no need to repeat this information nor is it a justification.
Results
In “Participant characteristics” it would be interesting to highlight that “In terms of wealth index,
1,154 (62.2%) people lived in a house defined as the poorest, second and medium” instead of
“700 people (37.8%) extracted for this study resided in households defined as richer and richer”,
since the economically disadvantaged population has a lower acceptable IYCF practice.
Discussion
In the first paragraph, the beginning and end are in accordance with the implications of the
results in the context of the study, however, in the middle of the paragraph, a literature review is
carried out, without discussing the results of the study. I suggest making it more objective with
text directly related to the search results.
Second and third paragraphs, the literature agrees with the results, but the wording does not link
or discuss the results of the study. There are loose sentences. I recommend linking, discussing
the literature with the research results, without separating the sentences. They are too big, with
many lines, it would be necessary to divide them into shorter and more objective paragraphs for
a better understanding of what is being discussed.
The remaining paragraphs agree with the BMC journal and its implications. Study limitations
are relevant and clear.
conclusions
A brief explanation of the relevance of the study and its implications based on the conclusions
is lacking.