Title: Knowledge, perceptions, beliefs, and opinions of the employees about GBV: a national
online study in South Africa
Version: 2 Date: 02 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Refiloe L. Thokoa
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer: Refiloe Thokoa
Article tittle: Knowledge, perceptions, beliefs, and opinions of the employees about GBV: a
national study in South Africa
There is definitively a need for further work on GBV in SA given its prevalence, political interest
and that it is a major socioeconomic determinant of health.  The study is thus worth publishing.
There is, however, potential to deepen the analysis of this study. A few areas require rephrasing
including a more comprehensive writeup of the data analysis section (i.e. post-test used but
not mentioned earlier etc.).  On the statistical techniques, important to briefly, as brief as one
sentence, state what each measure does, particularly the more complex ones, so that readers
would know what a given result would actually mean.  A post-test is necessary for the gender
demographic and a discussion on normality since parametric tests are used is important (or a
brief discussion on reliance on the central limit theorem, which I presume is the case in this
instance.  My technical recommendation would be “accept with changes” but this option is not
available, I am thus recommending “revise”. More detailed comments to guide the revision are
provided below:
References: Please use recent sources, about 4 or so are old and more recent sources are available.
Try to not go older than "2000"
P2: Also mention the post-test used
P2 (Results): This may not be entirely true (statistically significant differences ito gender) please
also do post test to determine this.
P2 (results): Seems some difference should in other demographics such as sector? Please also
include
P3 (paragraph 1, line 3): The elements stated in previous sentence are not necessarily risk factors
in their own-right, either contextualise these (i.e. low socioeconomic status) or use a different
word when referring to them here.
P3: "...and girls, severely disrupting women’s…" This is a very good statement, mentioning
patriarchy is probably important here and would provide probable reason relating to the
acceptability statement relating to norms mentioned lower down. Although still ok as is, consider
if worth doing this.
P3 (last paragraph): "worldwide prevalence…" Citing an actual ranking of some sort, if possible,
would really enrich this statement.
P4: "Literature suggests that different perspectives…." Perhaps expand on this upfront by
mentioning, and very briefly describe, two or three of the more common perspectives.
Alternatively remove sentence.
P4: I would use "importance"; "criticality", although still ok, stood out in a somewhat peculiar
way in this sentence for me.
P4 (methods): A sentence on normality to justify use of parametric tests would be good or one
on the central limit theorem which I presume is what is relied on here.
P4: "The snowball method…" Please add the word "sampling" here
P5: "we did not estimate any sample size…." Would be good to cite 3 or 4 studies where a
similar approach was taken, preferably work published on peer-reviewed platforms etc. as this
is not necessarily common practice. Or provide some kind of literature to support this approach.
P5: I would steer clear from using pronouns as far as possible. I see used somewhat extensively
throughout document
P5 (Questionnaire): Consider restructuring to make easier to read and for better flow (e.g.; first
paragraph can talk about pre-testing, second pilot and last can be the outline of sections.
P5: Please include a more technical, but brief, discussion on the pre-testing process for the
questionnaire and use literature to support what you've done. This process is super importance
for new questionnaires
P 6: "The questionnaire ended with two open questions…" Given relative novelty of this type
of work in the GBV space, please also present findings from these open-ended questions more
expressly (emerging themes etc.). This will also partly address the shortcoming you mentioned
later about the need for more qualitative type research.
P6: "Open questions" Open-ended questions?
P6: Discuss post test to ANOVA used in data analysis section and why its importance. Please
also do analysis for the gender demographic, it may not be true that statistically significant
differences exist between all three groups (the hypothesis test in ANOVA is omnibus so not
sufficient without Scheffe's or Tukey etc. to make this claim).
P7: "Kaiser-Meyer Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) and Bartlett's test of
Sphericity" - brief description of exactly how these help determine sampling adequacy - just a
sentence on each. Please also include references.
P7: "Applying Kaiser's Guttman rule, five factors were extracted…" Describe this rule, because
very important for section below.
P6: "Factor 1 was…." I think we have opportunity to really use these findings more robustly
to add rigour to the analysis. Label these properly (and can possibly come up with your own
concepts) by using emerging themes in items distributed in each factor. Then use literature to
support your labelling.
See following note on how to do this:
NEILL, J. 2008. Writing up a factor analysis. Bruce: University of Canberra Newfoundland
Labrador Centre for Learning and Development. S.a. Administrative Support Professionals:
competency Framework. Mount Pearl: Newfoundland Labrador Public Secretariat.
See example where this was done: https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v53i1.2593
P8"cumulative variance explained by all five factors is 59.011…" Usually 60% representation
adequate. Couldn't find lower threshold in the source cited (i..e. 23); perhaps double check or
find another source. Alternatively you can find 3 studies that violated this rule and you could
use that as justification for using slightly lower threshold or provide a statistical explanation,
supported by literature, for why a slightly lower threshold would not significantly impact your
results etc.
P8 (table 1): For all p-values in all tables; where "0.000" is the case please replace with "<0.000"
absolute 0 is very rare.
P8: "than two-thirds (68.1%) were…" Provide actual number as in sentence below.
P8 (demographics table): Add cumulative frequency to your table, and perhaps sort elements
from lowest to highest frequency or highest to lowest. Makes it easier to read.
P9: " "...and employee opinions and recommendations (p>0.05)." Think this should be less than.
P9: "Finally, female employees and members of the LGBTQIAP+ community" Perhaps say
"Female and LGBTQIAP+ employees" It currently reads as if the latter group is broader than
just employees (i.e. community at large).
P9: "recommendations, as revealed by the p-values < 0.05 significance level" I would rather
mention the resulting p-value. This significance level already provided in intro or include it in
a bracket here upfront. Makes easier to read.
P9: "Pairwise Comparisons: Multiple Comparison…" I see post test to ANOVA used here;
please do for gender also and mention this in the data analysis section (and briefly detail what
this measure does) and cite source
P10 (paragraph): A little difficult to read, find a way to state these in a simple way. E.g.
differences were found by x and y (m=xx, sd=xx, p=xx).
P10: " Women respondents were more than two-thirds of the total. This indicates how the women
employees in South Africa….." Is this referring to the European study? If so, maybe make it
clear upfront that the study was conducted using SA data. The first part spoke about Africa,
then the European study and then SA is mentioned. Perhaps rephrase to make clearer which is
which throughout.
P11: "shows low sensitization of public health to GBV issues" Not sure if one can use a low
response rate from public health employees to come to this conclusion. Perhaps beef this up a
little or find source for this statement.
P11: "Women employees had more knowledge …" Perhaps add "In this study, xxx". It’s not
clear if we are still discussing the European study or have move to this study
P11: "because the women respondents have more personal experience and/or informative
knowledge from their peers, families, and neighborhoods. It could be that the women learn GBV
as their survival strategies at home and the workplace" Very good statement. Add source and
make this statement more definitive.
P11: "community have better perceptions and beliefs of GBV…." Would a higher score be
better? Otherwise replace the word "better" and use "higher scores" or "worse perceptions”.
P11: "….sexual orientation and gender identity…" I think may be useful to briefly define these
P11: "...by their experience and motivation perceived by sexual orientation and gender identity."
Provide detail on what is meant here and provide source/s. Confusion is created by referring to
their perceptions as better when its actually worse (i.e. higher score means worse perceptions
right?).
P11: Perhaps also comment on the fact that males had lowest, followed by LGBTQIAP+ and
then females. This would be super good observation and opportunity to really get into literature
to explain. This will deepen analysis.
P11: "This has been well explained in literature" Perhaps add sentence on exactly what literature
says
P11 (last paragraph): Not sure what is meant here, perhaps rephrase to make clearer. Claims
on provision of constructs can only be made after proper labelling. At this point, it’s only the
questionnaire itself that has been put forward as a reliable measuring instrument.
P12: "and protective factors…" What are protective factors? Perhaps say it here somewhere.
P12: "qualitative studies are highly…" Perhaps also add something on findings from the open-
ended question. Brings qualitative aspect to the study and partly address the shortcoming stated
later and need for more qualitative work in the area
P12: "With most participants being female, employed in the private sector, and representing
diverse language groups and geographic locations in South Africa, it is clear that the prevalence
of GBV is known.." The first part, sort of suggests that sample is not entirely representative
and the last then immediately generalises findings. This is fine but either soften the first part
about females…or leave it out by perhaps saying something like "the sample used in the study
is representative of diverse language xxxx"
P12: "inform, rehabilitate, and support." Try to fit corporate social responsibility in here; that's
how private sector can reach society; I think you mentioned something earlier private sector role
on GBV for broader society
P12: "business or strategic discourses" Does this strategic belong to the business? Otherwise
specify or remove.