Reviewer’s report
Title: Opportunistic domestic violence screening for pregnant and post-partum women by community  
based health care providers.
Version: 2 Date: 11 Feb 2018
Reviewer: Daisy Singla
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript once again. It is much improved and much  
clearer in the writing.
The authors have responded to all of my queries in a separate document. There are several that require  
some attention.
1) While the authors have better described how their results were analyzed, the manuscript would  
benefit greatly from using a theoretical framework to inform their qualitative analysis and  
recommendations.  
2) The authors report that they intend to explore facilitators in a future study. This should be noted  
as  a  limitation  in  the  existing  manuscript  given  the  growing  evidence  base  support  the  
examination of barriers alongside facilitators.  
3) The authors argue that the socioeconomic status of the country 'is not of relevance'. This is not  
true, as it is suggested that certain cultures and countries have higher rates of intimate partner  
violence than others. 
4) the term 'domestic violence' reminds me of dependent variable. The authors may want to use  
'intimate partner violence' or IPV if this is deemed appropriate. 
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.
Unable to assess
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 am able to assess the statistics
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.
None
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