Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and determinants of intimate partner violence towards female
students of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
Version: 1Date:28 May 2013
Reviewer: Katie Edwards
Reviewer's report:
I have now completed my review of “Prevalence and determinants of intimate
partner violence towards female students of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria.”
This paper reports the findings from a well-designed and important study. Given
the dearth of research on IPV in Nigeria, this paper fills an important gap in the
literature. However, there are several concerns I have with the paper and have
divided them into major compulsory revisions, minor essential revisions, and
discretionary revisions.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Throughout the paper the authors state that behaviors such as smoking and
alcohol use are determinants or predictors of IPV. Given the data are
cross-sectional, however, the authors do not know this. Moreover, there is
research demonstrating that these behaviors can be outcomes of IPV (likely they
both increase risk and are exacerbated by IPV). The authors need to temper their
language and reframe this throughout as it is not accurate to describe these
things as determinants/causes/predictors of IPV.
2. The authors state that data were collected in an interview format and then later
in the paper, the authors state a survey/questionnaire was used. This is
confusing and needs to be clarified. If it was indeed a face-to-face interview
stating the data were anonymous is incorrect.
3. Much more details about the measures that were used to assess all constructs
of interests are needed including validity and reliability data, names of measures,
sample questions, etc.
4. I read the paper twice and never saw the actual rates of IPV—this is critical
and should be included.
5. The presentation of the odds ratios is confusing. First, for the categorical
variables with more than two levels, what was the reference group? Also, when
there are two levels of a a variable (e.g., alcohol use, yes or no) there should
only be one odds ratio but the authors have listed two--this is confusing and I
think incorrect.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. There were several, minor grammatical and typographical errors throughout
the paper (e.g., In the abstract “descriptive statistics and multivariate analysis
was done” should be “analyses were done” yes?).
2. In the abstract and results sections, the authors need to include the
comparison groups (e.g., “Students who smoked cigarettes (OR= 2.46; 95% CI:
1.58-3.83); consumed alcohol (OR= 2.36; 95% CI: 1.82- 3.06); and with history of
interparental violence (OR= 2.40; 95% CI: 1.88- 3.07) were more likely to
experience violence” --- the authors need to add “than students who did not
engage in these behaviors” or something like that. This needs to be corrected
throughout the results section.
3. In the abstract, when discussing academic performance please put an “e.g.,”
in parentheses after adverse effects and give an example. This is quite vague.
4. There are no rates of IPV in Nigeria provided in the Introduction, but they are
mentioned in the Discussion. I think there should be more focus on research in
Nigeria on IPV in the Introduction to really set the stage for the current study.
Also, the authors should state explicitly what their study adds that is not already
known in the literature. Moreover, the final sentence of the introduction “Thus,
this study adds…” seems to come out of nowhere. I think a final paragraph that
includes a summary sentence of what is known about IPV in Nigeria, another
sentence about what is not known or less studied, and then a sentence with the
broad goals of the study. Following this, the authors need to include more
specific aims, given that the authors measured a number of factors related to
disclosure. Also, did the authors not have hypotheses? Finally, I think some type
of underlying theory or conceptual model would be helpful. The authors
examined a number of variables (but not others, like attitudes towards IPV) and
the rationale for the inclusion of some variables and not others is unclear and
should be discussed in the Introduction. This is why I think some type of
underlying theory would be important.
5. Why was the study only on female students when men and also be both
victims and perpetrators of IPV?
6. Why were peers not listed as an option for informal support disclosure? In U.S.
studies with adolescents and young adults, friends are the most common source
to whom victims disclose to. Perhaps it is different in Nigeria?
7. The authors should include a paragraph that includes limitations and future
research.
Discretionary Revisions
1. Readability could be improved by the use of transitions between paragraphs ni
the introduction and discussion sections.
2. It would be helpful if the authors could use less vague terminology and
quantify things when necessary (e.g., “women rarely disclose IPV”… could you
state the percentage of those who disclose?
3. The statement that “it is likely that students who were resident off campus may
have had different experiences” could use some further explication—what do the
authors mean by this? Is their research to support this?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.