Title: Factors Associated with Intimate Partner Violence Among Ever-Partnered Women in
Two Southern African Countries: A Multilevel Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 22 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript addresses a significant issue by examining the correlates of intimate partner
violence (IPV) in Malawi and South Africa. The study is well-structured, with a clear research
question, appropriate methodology, and relevant discussion. However, there are areas that
require revision, including methodological clarifications, better alignment of results with
conclusions, and more critical engagement with the theoretical framework. Below are detailed
recommendations to enhance the manuscript’s rigor and clarity.
Key Areas for Revision:
1. Study Design and Justification
The study design is appropriate for the research question, using Demographic and Health Survey
(DHS) data. However, the authors should clarify why only the 2016 DHS was chosen, given
that multiple waves may allow for trend analysis.
The authors should acknowledge potential limitations in using cross-sectional data when
discussing causality.
2. Methods and Statistical Analysis
Sample Selection: The manuscript should explicitly state whether any exclusion criteria were
applied beyond the missing data threshold (15%).
Statistical Methods: While the methods section is generally robust, further details on how model
fit was assessed for logistic regression should be provided (e.g., goodness-of-fit tests).
Handling of Missing Data: The manuscript states that cases with >15% missing values were
excluded. It would be helpful to specify whether missing data were missing completely at
random (MCAR) or handled using imputation techniques.
3. Interpretation of Results
The results are well presented but should be linked more explicitly to the theoretical framework.
The authors reference resource theory, but alternative theories (e.g., intersectionality, gendered
power theory) could offer additional depth.
Some findings require cautious interpretation. For example, the association between women’s
autonomy and IPV risk contradicts conventional expectations. The discussion should explore
possible mechanisms (e.g., backlash effects, economic stress).
4. Theoretical Engagement
While resource theory is relevant, the discussion could benefit from intersectionality theory to
address how overlapping social identities (gender, poverty, education) shape IPV risk differently
in Malawi and South Africa.
5. Overstated Claims
Some claims, particularly regarding causality, should be softened due to the study’s cross-
sectional nature. For example, rather than saying "Having partners who drink alcohol increases
the likelihood of IPV," it would be more precise to say, "IPV prevalence was higher among
women whose partners consumed alcohol."
The conclusion should reflect the study’s associational rather than causal findings.
6. Presentation and Clarity
Some sections, particularly the results and discussion, contain long paragraphs that could be
broken down for better readability.
Tables should be formatted to ensure consistent decimal places and variable labeling.
In-text references should be checked for consistency (e.g., WHO, 2021 is cited in-text but
missing from the references).
7. Ethical Considerations
While the study relies on publicly available DHS data, a brief discussion on ethical concerns
related to IPV research (e.g., risks to participants in primary data collection settings) would
strengthen the ethical reflexivity of the paper.