Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Unequal power relations and partner violence against women in Tanzania: A cross -
sectional analysis  
 
Version: 1 Date: 12 Mar 2018  
 
Reviewer: Pauline Gulliver  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
In general the authors have presented a well written and well argued paper. My comments below 
are predominantly to strengthen the manuscript.  
 
Methods  
Page 9, paragraph 1: While it is clear from the methods how a male and female could be 
included from the same household, it is not clear how the relationship between the eligible 
male(s) and eligible female(s) were established and therefore how the "matched couples" were 
identified.  
Page 9, paragraph 2:  I think you are meaning "attacked" rather than "attached her with a knife"  
Page 12, paragraph 1: Men's problematic alcohol consumption is captured by women's responses 
to whether they are often drunk, but men's and women's relative drinking patterns are c aptured as 
self report. Is there a justification for these two different approaches?  
Page 12, final paragraph: Please note the p (significance level) for inclusion in the final model.  
 
Discussion  
Page 19, lines 46 -54: I think there needs to be some justifi cation for this statement "the findings 
from this study highlight the potential additional beneficial effects of structural systems reforms 
that currently serve  
to perpetuate gender inequalities. For example, by reforming the labour market from its current  
reliance on informal sector activities," Given that there was a reduced association with violence 
when men had seasonal work (informal working) and the significance for increased risk for 
women in seasonal employment was borderline (0.056 and only at the bi-variate level), it doesn't 
seem as though the evidence to support this statement exists within the manuscript - or perhaps it 
just needs to be brought to the attention to the reader.  
It is possible that my concerns raised relate more to the amount of in formation presented in 
paragraph 2 of page 19. The paragraph starts with a mention of alcohol and polygamy and moves 
swiftly to the role of paid employment, without fully dealing with alcohol and polygamy as risk 
factors (although a mention is made to alco hol abuse being related to not being able to meet 
gender role expectations). My preference would be to see these multiple issues to be given the 
space they need to discuss their potential role more fully. While it is not possible to address the 
issue of ca usality in this paper, drawing on previous studies could help with a more 
comprehensive discussion.  
 
Why was there not more made of the association between violence experience and parity and the 
potential link between this and the potential for employment?  It is possible that this association 
serves to reinforce the structural norms more that the issue of informal labour?  
 
Page 20, Conclusion: The authors state that "Targeted interventions to individuals, couples and 
the wider community have been found to r educe rates of partner violence" yet at the beginning of 
the discussion a point is made about the lack of movement in prevalence rates between those 
described in this investigation and those described previously.  
 
Table 2: Age at cohabitation 18 -20 is bold ed so as to appear significant, which I don't think it is 
(p>0.1)  
 
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.  
 
No 
 
 
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.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication 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 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 com peting 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
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