Title: Provider Perspectives on the Provision of Safe, Equitable, Trauma-Informed Care for
Intimate Partner Violence Survivors during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study
Version: 1 Date: 28 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
This is an important and timely paper, seeking to explore provider’s perspectives on the care of
IPV survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic in Boston. The study is relevant, the methods are
appropriately chosen and described, and paper is well structured/presented and clearly written.
The authors have sampled and interviewed 18 diverse providers representing health, housing,
legal aid and social work and clearly presented their findings in a comprehensive thematic
framework. The level of attention to the study design is appropriate and the findings are well
presented in both table outline form and in more detailed narrative form.
Despite the paper’s relevance and strengths, the chosen broad scope and wide sampling and
analytical framework have yielded an all-encompassing, yet somewhat superficially descriptive,
generalised paper briefly touching on a variety of relevant themes, but not providing sufficient
depths of analysis/reflection on any of the domains or themes. The somewhat anticipated
conclusion on the benefits of a flexible hybrid approach (in-person and telehealth) seems to be
valid, but the discussion lacks a more nuanced interpretation.
The authors choose to sample providers from a variety of sectors providing trauma informed
care (health, social care, housing, legal aid). It is not clear from the paper what trauma informed
care means and how provider selection (google search?) determined providers’ trauma informed
approach.  It can be assumed that selected providers offer a wide range of care pathways and
services (statutory, private/NGO, emergency, non-emergency, primary and secondary health
care, etc. etc.?) and respond to different survivor groups (women, men, children and young
people) and a wide range of experiences, etc.?  Yet in the findings section of the paper, a one
sentence statement is typically illustrated by a one sentence quote from a provider suggesting
that there were no contrasting views or views specific/unique to different sectors/care pathways
or professionals.) In the discussion ‘providers’ are systematically mentioned as one entity, how
about variety of experiences/approaches?
Given the international audience, it would be useful to provide context (references) to the IPV
infrastructure (care pathways) in USA in general and in Boston in particular in the introduction
(what strong IPV infrastructure means); also is Boston atypical/different from another US
metropolis in terms of IPV response? Is it relevant to specify the name of the city at all?
It would be also useful to mention how participant recruitment and selection impacted on
the findings (were ‘innovative’ or ‘creative’ practitioners more keen to be interviewed, how
about characteristics of the sample in terms of gender, age, professional experience, etc.?) and
how the context and the sampling approach might have impacted on the generalisability and
transferability of the findings as part of the paper’s limitations.
Were service users involved with the design / interpretation? I agree with the authors about
the need to conduct a similar study capturing the views of survivors alongside describing the
perspectives of providers.