Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: A qualitative exploration of 'thrivership' among women who have experienced domestic 
violence and abuse: Development of a new model  
 
Version: 1 Date: 24 May 2019  
 
Reviewer: Stephanie  Arteaga  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors have done a wonderful job addressing the reviewers' comments. I have two 
additional comments (one withstanding from previous review) that I believe will benefit this 
paper:  
- The data  analysis section, while improved from the last reading, could still be improved with 
additional information about the authors' process. Not much was added about data analysis itself. 
However, I do appreciate the additional information about the participan t feedback sessions.  
If the authors choose to add more here, they could look to "Chen, C. X., Draucker, C. B., & 
Carpenter, J. S. (2018). What women say about their dysmenorrhea: a qualitative thematic 
analysis" for an example of a previously published t hematic analysis also citing Braun and 
Clarke in BMC Women's Health. While the authors do not necessarily have to present data 
analysis in this way, it could be a good guideline for what information to include in this section. 
It may also help to state who  conducted interviews and focus groups, as this could help explain 
familiarity with the data.  
- The added information about victim terminology at the beginning of the introduction is a great 
addition that adds more nuance to the paper. However, I do think  the text could be edited to be 
more succinct.  
Are the methods appropriate and well descri bed?  
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.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interes ts 
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 publ ication 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 current ly 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 det ails below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests' below.  
 
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