Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Community Stakeholders ’ views on reducing Violence against Women in Pakistan  
 
Version: 0 Date: 05 Sep 2019  
 
Reviewer: Nancy Glass  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The investigators have conducted a qualitative study with key stakeholders (men and women 
participating in community based economic programming, health and social service 
providers) in four provinces in Pakistan.  The study has the potential to provide important 
information on governmental, institutional and communit y based policies and programs to 
prevent and respond to violence against women.  However, the manuscript needs significant 
revisions.  Specifically, the stated purpose, "the aim of this study is to understand the voices 
of stakeholders to reduce violence a gainst women and to explore the possible community -
based strategies that could be implemented in Pakistan" is very general and could mean 
anything and everything.  The purpose seems to be - Explore social and gender norms that 
sustain GBV and policies and programs to prevent and respond to GBV from the perspective 
of stakeholders across 4 diverse Pakistan provinces.  The investigators should focus and 
reorganize the background section, for example, please provide research globally and 
specifically for Pakis tan and the selected provinces as feasible.  It would be useful to define 
social and gender norms for the study and the research that exists to support the focus on 
importance of changing social and gender norms as mechanism to prevention GBV.  The 
authors  mention the Ecological Framework and participatory research methods but provide 
limited details on how these informed the methods. The methods section lacks important 
details on setting (why were the four provinces selected?), key stakeholders (why health  
providers, community health workers and couples in economic programs), recruitment, 
consent, data collection procedures, focus group/interview questions (and how are they linked 
to ecological framework and study aims) confidentiality and safety protocols are all important 
components that need to be provided in detail - given it is likely at lease some participants are 
survivors and/or perpetrators of GBV.  The analysis section is very weak and provides 
limited information on the process/procedures for insu ring rigor. The results are very general 
and lack depth.  The interpretation is superficial and as written no new information - if the 
team would provide depth to analysis and do some confirmation with stakeholders the results 
may be strengthened and provi de new information that could guide leaders and service 
providers in developing and implementing interventions that reinforce and strengthen existing 
GBV policies and reduce barriers to health and safety of women and girls.  The discussion 
seems to oversta te the findings presented in the results section.  Is this actually the first study 
that has investigated GBV from the perspective of men and women community members in 
Pakistan - the references and other research do not support this statement. The discuss ion 
should link back to the study aims, ecological framework and findings and existing evidence 
to either confirm or dispute previous research.  Implications for future programs, policies and 
research related to the findings would be very useful in the dis cussion section.  
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is  required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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, pl ease explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 furth er 
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:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 i n 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 you r 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 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