Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: When User -Centered Design meets Implementatio n Science: Integrating Provider 
Perspectives in the Development of an Intimate Partner Violence  Intervention for Women 
Treated in the United States ’ Largest Integrated Healthcare System  
 
Version: 1 Date: 11 Oct 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several 
testable research questions? (Brief or other articl e types: is there a clear objective?)  
 
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
 
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analy ses performed with sufficient technical rigor to 
allow confidence in the results?  
 
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately  
 
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
 
N/A - there are no statistics in this study  
 
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
 
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently 
for you to now reco mmend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further 
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Yes - current version is technically sound  
 
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: My overall impression is that the authors have improved the quality 
of their paper and responded in depth to the reviewers comments.                                 
 
The authors have clarified methods (for example length of interviews and who conducted them), 
and made the paper more relevant to audiences outside the US and described in more detail 
(from title through to main section of the paper) and defined the popula tion of their study more 
clearly, describing risk factors for women veterans to be victims of IPV.  
  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
 
I think the authors have responded fully to the reviewers comments, writing additional sections 
at length and the paper is much impr oved as a result.  
 
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
 
I have particularly focused on the methods -which is now clearly written and described.  
 
The language quality is good, with passive usage reduced.  
 
the introduction is more international in focus.  
 
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.  
 
Yes 
 
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 manus cript 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:  
 
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, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stock s or shares in an organisation t hat 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creat ive Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was  paid a small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
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 f or 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 in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors,  which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal