Reviewer's report
Title:Intimate partner violence during pregnancy and its associated factors in
Abay Chomen Woreda, Oromia region, western Ethiopia: Community based
Study ,June 2014.
Version:4Date:14 September 2015
Reviewer: Misra Abdulahi
Reviewer's report:
1. Minor essential revisions
On the title it needs to be clarified what kind of community based study was it. It
needs to be
mentioned specifically as cross sectional or case control.
Abstract: better to avoid any abbreviations in abstract. On the methods they used
a WHO multicountry study tools. Why a multi center study tools is used here
since your study is conducted
only at one sites? Rather it should be customized to a local context; a multi
center study tool
might be prepared to be inclusive of all factors which are not related to your
context.
Method on the first paragraph in explaining the study area: Is it the estimated
population or the
actual count since the government conducted every some year interval? How do
you get this
figure? On the second paragraph on study design and population: it was better to
mention the
study population than the source population to give emphasis to study. The
source population is
not mentioned.
Similarly on this subtopic on the third paragraph it was stated that numbering of
the household
was done on selected Keble to fix a sampling frame. Was it feasible numbering
the household
and its importance? Your study units are pregnant women so it was good if you
use the updated
ANC registration of health extension workers.
Data collection methods and tools
On the third paragraph you say pretest was conducted. After you do a pre-test
was there no any
modification on the instrument? If there is no any amendment on the study
instrument how a
WHO multi-center questionnaire can address all issues and be similar in your
single study site?
Result
On the first paragraph on the title you mentioned socio-demographic
characteristics, but it
doesn’t show whose socio-demographic characteristics was it. Was it the
intimate partner or the
mothers? It should be descriptive enough.
On reproductive characteristics of pregnant women on the first paragraph you
begin a sentence
with number rather better to write it in words. On the second paragraph you
mentioned dowry
payment and marriage partner. Is payment of dowry and marrying to a drunken
man a
reproductive characteristic of pregnant women that you present it here? It may
have an impact on
the rest of their life and can be a causative factor for intimate violence. So place it
accordingly
where it belongs than considering and placing it as a reproductive characteristics
of pregnant
women. Finally while you are referring the table for further elucidation on the
bracket you said
“see table 3” no need to instruct your readers rather simply on the bracket you
can say (Table 3).
2. Discretionary revisions
Discussions at the end of the second paragraph you are emphasizing the role of
culture as a
traditional norm that support beating women in the study area. Better to consider
the use of a
multi center tool for a single study area. There might be un-necessary items
included which are
not really a practice of the study community.
On the fourth paragraph of your discussions you said this might be polygamy in
the study area as
one reason for low prevalence of perpetrator of the biological father. Have you
conducted or
refer on the data that indicate the polygamy in the study area, and it would be so
nice if you
further elaborate it.
Conclusions: On the second paragraph while you are recommending you
mentioned that policy
makers should address that the health extension workers package should
include education,
screening and referral of IPVDP victims. Don’t you think this might be too early to
scale up your
single finding to incorporate in the government policy? It is better to avoid this
component of
your conclusion. Perhaps it might be possible once after a longitudinal study is
conducted and a
repeatability of the findings in different area and with different study design
possible to sale it up
to incorporate in the government policy.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.