Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Domestic and intimate partner violence among pregnant women in a low resource setting 
in South Africa: a facility -based, mixed methods stu dy 
 
Version: 0 Date: 03 Jun 2017  
 
Reviewer: Deborah Loxton  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Abstract: It would be useful to add a sentence to the conclusions that demonstrates the value of 
the research, for example, how might this information inform policy or health practices?  
 
Introduction: The literature was well covered, although at times th ere was some confusion about 
whether results cited pertained to all countries, or low income countries, or African countries, or 
South Africa in particular. The aims of the study are well justified.  
Page 5 lines 22 -25, it is not clear why the authors indic ate that results showing associations 
between perinatal health and DV are converse to those showing that DV associated mental health 
costs contribute to a high economic and social burden.  
Page 6 line 23, please clarify if this is the case (that unintended pregnancy is more strongly 
related to DV than intended pregnancy) in low -income countries only or globally.  It would also 
be useful to distinguish between unintended pregnancies that were wanted, as opposed to those 
that were unwanted (if this has been ex amined in the literature).  
Page 7 Lines 8 -17, please clarify if the cited studies were conducted in low income countries 
only, or if these are global results.  
 
Methods were clearly described and the measures used were appropriate. The researchers should 
be commended for their high level of participant care. It would have been helpful to include 
some information about how rigour was maintained for the qualitative analysis.  
 
Results were well described overall. More detail on the qualitative data would be helpful - 
defining the themes for example, rather than just relying on the table. Page 15, lines 3 -9 would 
be better placed near the rest of the qualitative results , rather than among the quantitative results.  
 
The Discussion is well structured and generally includes interpretations that are supported by the 
results. However, the qualitative results should be reported in a more conservative manner, they 
are not repre sentative to any population. Rewording of the qualitative elements of the Discussion 
is warranted.  
Regarding prevalence, it is difficult to see how the results from the current study would be 
directly comparable to other studies, given the sample restricti ons. This should be considered 
when discussing prevalence. Also, a minor point, but to say that the prevalence falls within a 
range that is 2 -57% has little actual meaning.  
Page 20 lines 7 -14: this paragraph compares various studies and findings that are u nlikely to be 
comparable in a meaningful way - Uganda and the study site are not the same, employment status 
is related to food poverty but is not the same thing, and the final sentence needs to be reworded 
to reflect that exploitation of financial vulnerab ility is abuse, in and of itself.  
The limitations section needs to be augmented, in addition to cross sectional designs not taking 
into account the progression of DV, the cross sectional nature of the study precludes 
interpretations concerning the directio n of associations and causality. Concerning 
representativeness, the sample is not representative and should not be generalised to other 
settings. The sample size is also low and this should be mentioned. Please add a paragraph about 
how rigour for the qual itative study was addressed.  
 
Minor point: 'data' is a plural term (the data are; not the data is).  
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 wh ich 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 yo u 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 recei ved 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 I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open peer revie w 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 co nfidential comments 
to the  editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal