Reviewer’s report
Title:  Prevalence of Domestic Violence and associated factors among Pregnant Women attending
antenatal care service at University of Gondar Referral Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia
Version: 0 Date: 11 Mar 2018
Reviewer: Eckhart Buchmann
Reviewer's report:
This  submission  presents  a  quantitative  study  on  the  prevalence  of  domestic  violence  and  its
determinants in a part of Ethiopia. This is not a new research question, and the results are not really
surprising, but may be important in the part of Ethiopia where the research was done. The authors write
in the introduction of the abstract that domestic violence during pregnancy 'is not well investigated and
understood in Ethiopia'. They acknowledge in the main text that domestic violence against women (not
necessarily those who are pregnant) has been 'extensively studied in Ethiopia'. So these results for
pregnant women can therefore be considered new for Ethiopia, although not for Africa or the world as a
whole. 
There are some weaknesses, and points of query, in this submission:
1.In the background (page 1), the authors discuss associations with domestic woman abuse in
lines 14-23, then provide more associations in lines 37-49. This is unnecessarily repetitive, and
needs to be packaged better. The associations are themselves a problem because they give no
information on causation. The background should have devoted more space to justifying this
particular study. What were the research gaps, what was known and not known and why was
this  study  with  its  methodology  going  to  offer  results  leading  to  efforts  to  reduce  this
phenomenon?
2.A quantitative methodology can be used for studying prevalence and risk factors, but has
limitations  in  terms  of  data  richness  and  integrity,  when  compared  with  a  qualitative
methodology.
3.Under data collection and procedures (page 5), the authors note their use of a 'women abuse
screening tool'. Where was this tool obtained, should its source have been acknowledged, and
had the tool been validated or at least been used successfully in other studies?
4.How were the questions shown in Table 3 chosen? Are these questions the result of the authors'
experience or of previous work done in Africa or in Ethiopia?
5.The questions in Table 3 are all such that they can be answered only yes or no. Why was there
not an additional option of 'don't know' or 'unsure'?
6.The response rate appears to have been 100% (450/450) of all women invited to participate
(page 6).  Given the sensitive nature of the topic, I am surprised that there was not a small
proportion of women who declined the invitation. 
7.On page 6, what is ETB (line 32)?
8.Table 3 can be shortened by removing the 'no' numbers and percentages. Since this was a purely
binary yes/no, the 'no' numbers are simply the total minus the 'yes'. 
9.In Table 3, for 'Man should use force…' the 'yes' and 'no' (62+358) add up to 420. This cannot
be correct. 
10.In Table 4, 'Family income…' should read 'Mother's personal income', as described in the
methods section. Yes? 
11.At the foot of Table 4, it does not make sense to specify 'p<0.00'. The p-value cannot be a
negative number. I suggest only one asterisk be used for all the comparisons where p<0.05,
irrespective of how low the p-value is. The 95% confidence intervals for the adjusted odds
ratios are already helpful.
12.The discussion (starting on page7) is weak. It is nothing more than a mildly interpretive repeat
of the results, with reference to whether the findings are in line or not with other researchers'
findings. At the end of the first paragraph on page 8, the author's explanation for their differing
finding is unhelpful. Of course study settings would make a difference. Sample size is not a
valid reason. What would be important is to explain if those studies used the same domestic
violence tool.  The most disappointing part of the discussion and its conclusion is the absence of
any indication of what is new in this piece of research, and then, no considered opinion at all
about what should be done next - what are the implications for research and practice locally and
globally? What is the way forward? 
13.The authors have not considered the strengths of limitations of this study. 
14.In general, the scientific writing is satisfactory, but the English language writing is substandard
and in parts it is difficult to understand what the authors mean. They need help from someone
who speaks and writes English very well.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
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:
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.
I declare that I have no competing intrests
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