Title: FACTORS INFLUENCING HELP-SEEKING BEHAVIOUR AMONG YOUNG
WOMEN WITH EXPERIENCE OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN NIGERIA
Version: 2 Date: 16 Jun 2025
Reviewer's report:
Introduction:
The introduction provides a thorough overview of gender-based violence (GBV) and intimate
partner violence (IPV), supported by relevant statistics and citations. The global and regional
(sub-Saharan Africa/Nigeria) context is well-established. The gap in research on help-seeking
behavior in Nigeria, particularly among rural young women, is well-articulated. The mention of
intersectionality (age, education, socioeconomic status) and digital platforms adds depth to the
justification. Connecting the study to SDG 3 (health) and SDG 5 (gender equality) strengthens its
relevance to global development agendas. Bandura’s social learning theory is a fitting choice, as
it aligns well with the study’s focus on observational learning, cultural norms, and environmental
influences on help-seeking behavior. The application of the theory to sociodemographic factors
(e.g., religion, ethnicity, media access) is logically explained.
A few comments to consider enhancing the introduction
1. Consider citing [14] with the author for more clarity under the health-seeking behavior
paragraph, just like you cited Tenkorang et al. [13].
2. Throughout the introduction, terms like "young women" and "women aged 15–49" appear
interchangeably. Defining the scope of "young women" early on can help maintain consistency.
3. You effectively use data to support your claims, but ensure that the references are consistently
cited. For instance, clarify the source of “25% of young women were implicated in the incidence
of IPV observed.” Also, for claims like "younger women may be influenced by peers/social
media," consider adding a reference to support the statement.
4. While the introduction highlights the importance of studying help-seeking behavior among
IPV victims, it could benefit from a more detailed mention of the study's significance and
potential contributions to the field. Explicitly state how this study advances prior work to
strengthen the Research Gap.
5. The theoretical framework could be shortened by focusing on key components (e.g.,
observational learning, self-efficacy) and trimming less critical details.
Methodology
The methodology section is well-structured. The use of the 2018 NDHS dataset is well-justified,
and the sampling methodology (stratified two-stage selection) is appropriately explained. The
study population (young women aged 15–29 who experienced IPV) is clearly defined, and the
rationale for focusing on Nigeria is well-supported with relevant demographic and socio-cultural
justifications. The operationalization of key variables (help-seeking behavior, IPV types, and
demographic factors) is detailed, with clear references to NDHS coding.  The use of descriptive
statistics, chi-square tests, and logistic regression is appropriate for the research objectives, and
the ethical compliance, including IRB approval, informed consent, and data anonymization, is
adequately addressed.
A few comments to consider
1. While the transition from adolescence to adulthood is mentioned, a stronger theoretical
or empirical justification for selecting this specific age range would strengthen the rationale.
Consider citing additional literature on why young women in this age group are particularly
vulnerable to IPV and less likely to seek help - (It was not mentioned in the introduction).
2. While you outline the tests used, a brief rationale for why binary logistic regression was
chosen for multivariate analysis would strengthen this section.
3. The description of IPV measurement (15 items with a 5-point scale) is somewhat unclear.
Are these scales dichotomized (e.g., "ever experienced" vs. "never") for analysis? If a summed
score was used, was it treated as continuous or categorical? Clarify how the different forms of
IPV (physical, sexual, emotional) were combined.
4. Will the different sources of help (neighbors, police, doctors, etc.) be analyzed separately, or
will they be grouped? A brief explanation would help.
5. The term "bivariable" is used instead of "bivariate"—ensure consistency with standard
statistical terminology.
6. There is no mention of how missing data was addressed. Given that surveys like NDHS
may have non-responses, a brief statement on exclusion or imputation methods would improve
transparency.
Results
The results section is well-organized and clearly presents the findings of the study, including a
strong statistical analysis. The use of tables to present the results makes it easy to understand and
compare the findings. The analysis of the results is detailed and provides a clear understanding
of the relationships between the variables.
Specific comments
1. There are minor inconsistencies in phrasing (e.g., "Southwest China and Northwest China"
appear instead of "Southwest Nigeria"). Carefully review for errors.
2. In Table 4, "Tertiary" is listed under "Highest educational level," but "Higher" was used in
Table 1; ensure consistency.
3. Briefly discuss why religion (p=0.57) was retained in the final model.
4. Highlight (bold) the significant p-values (e.g., 0.000) for quicker scanning.
5. Define NS (non-significant) in table footnotes
6. Although the tables in the results section are quite informative, readability can be enhanced
by providing concise explanations of the tables instead of repeating the same data in the text.
Discussion
The discussion section is well-developed and offers insightful interpretations. It clearly
interprets the results of the study and provides a good understanding of the relationships between
the variables. It compares its findings with existing literature, which helps to contextualize
the results and identify areas of agreement and disagreement. The discussion section provides
implications for policy and practice, which is essential for translating research findings into
action.
Specific comments
1. Some statements, such as the assertion that people with low educational attainment have
limited access to helpful information and services, could benefit from supporting evidence.
2. The results showed educated women were less likely to seek help (OR=0.34–0.35), yet
the discussion cites studies where education increased help-seeking [33, 34]. Resolve this
discrepancy, e.g., by hypothesizing that educated Nigerian women may fear stigma or lack trust
in formal systems.
3. The sentence “the majority of people who eventually sought help subscribed to formal
settings” contradicts Table 2 (only 0.4% sought formal help). Clarify or correct this statement.
4. Expand on how Nigeria’s patriarchal norms (mentioned briefly) specifically deter formal
help-seeking (e.g., fear of marital dissolution, community backlash).
5. The South-South’s lower help-seeking (OR=0.49) deserves deeper discussion
Limitations
1. Acknowledge that NDHS is cross-sectional, so causality cannot be inferred.
Referencing
1. Ensure all references are cited consistently, correctly numbered, and formatted according to
the journal’s guidelines. E.g., the author’s name should be included with [33], [34] for clarity,
as mentioned in the introduction comments.