Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: When User -Centered Design meets Implementatio n Science: Integrating Provider 
Perspe ctives in the Development of an Intimate Partner Violence  Intervention for Women 
Treated in the United States ’ Largest Integrated Healthcare System  
 
Version: 0 Date: 10 Feb 2019  
 
Reviewer: Kelsey L. Hegarty  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This article is an important addition to i ntervention development in the IPV field. Careful 
attention to users in the development occurs frequently so it is great that this article addresses 
this limitation. However it does not really advance the field as there are very few novel findings. 
It is v ery US centric and obviously it is RISE intervention centric but for an international 
audience we need to be able to apply some of the findings to other interventions. Currently the 
findings around barriers and need for support and training are not novel g enerally having been 
shown in multiple papers on barriers with health practitioners.  
 
In background need to expand beyond only US references as this journal is international. Further 
need to reference statement on more healthcare service use. Need referencing to the screening 
debate, in particular that Cochrane and WHO reviews don't recomme nd screening and are the 
most up to date reviews (Nelson is old). This article is about interventions so really it should say 
'Despite differences of opinion about screening health care providers should provide a first line 
response and interventions". A g ood reference for this is Garcia Moreno's Lancet article on 
health system change.  
 
Need to state VHA is in the US and avoid this only being US centric. Need to reference 
statement at end of second paragraph. Need to add Hegarty et al WEAVE reference from the 
Lancet as it is a motivational interviewing intervention as well (on p6 line 19). Minor edits 
needed include: Needs comma after women on p5 line 48. Why is veterans capitilized?  
 
Method is very clear. Who undertook the interviews?  
 
 
Results  
 
Do we know an ything about the providers level of training in IPV as this will influence the 
results?  
 
It is difficult to interpret all the findings without more knowledge about the RISE intervention.  
 
It is unclear what OEF is? or why it is specifically mentioned.  
 
 
Discussion  
 
P15 second paragraph needs to be referenced to other literature. Third paragraph line 51 sentence 
needs referencing.  
 
The discussion is once again too focussed on US situation in VHA. There are other interventions 
for IPV that are patient centred and have been written up e.g. WEAVE in Australia, iHeal in 
Canada etc  
 
I feel the conclusion about the use of UCD is not really borne out from this study. Of course 
getting user input is important but this paper does not really demonstrate that there are th at many 
innovative findings from this consultation.  
 
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, p lease explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require furt her 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
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, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the 
publi cation of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 curr ently 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 interests.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named rep ort 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the aut hors' 
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 understa nd that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal