Reviewer's report
Title:Traumatic physical health consequences of intimate partner violence
against women: What is the role of community-level factors?
Version: 2Date:19 July 2011
Reviewer: Rashmi Gangamma
Reviewer's report:
I commend the author for undertaking the assignment of investigating this
sensitive and highly relevant topic. My comments here are intended to further
strengthen the manuscript.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. In the methods section, under “community-level measures of gender
inequality”, the author should clarify why only women’s accounts of tolerant
attitudes were assessed. “Community” would involve men and women; the
current heading is misleading.
2. In paragraph 2 in “Community level measures”, the categories under “decision
making autonomy” are not clear. Specifically, it is difficult to understand the
difference between “respondent and husband/partner” and “respondent and other
person in the household”. Why was the former category grouped as “yes” and not
the latter? How did they assess autonomy in these two situations?
3. End of second paragraph of discussion, the author states “ the difference
between these studies and the present study (is) the inclusion of community-level
factors”. The author should expand more on this difference. A more in-depth
analysis of the community level factor would benefit the manuscript.
• End of third paragraph in Discussion, the author notes that “controlling
behavior” is a precursor to IPV. I would suggest that the controlling behavior is
part of the IPV process.
• The next paragraph explaining the finding that women with lesser education are
less likely to be abused also needs elaboration. Could it be that men who have
wives with lesser education do not feel threatened? Or conversely, those with
wives with higher education feel threatened due to a perceived shift in power?
4. In the last paragraph under “Conclusion”, the author provides contrary report
of the association between lesser education and likelihood of abuse.
• The last sentence here includes quite a few recommendations for policy and
intervention. An elaboration of each of the recommendation would be beneficial.
For instance, what interventions are needed to modify “controlling” behaviors in
relationships?
Minor Essential Revisions
The entire manuscript requires a thorough proofread for grammar and sentence
structure.
Discretionary Revisions
While studies of this nature may not have been conducted with this particular
population, there are emerging studies indicating similar results. Inclusion of
these articles would strengthen the introduction and review of literature section.
The authors may consider including the following articles in their review:
a. Bonomi AE, Anderson M, Reid RJ, Rivara FP, Carrell D, Thompson RS.
Medical and
psychosocial diagnoses in women with a history of intimate partner violence.
Archives
of Internal Medicine 2009;169(18):1692-1697.
b. Bonomi AE, Anderson ML, Rivara FP, Thompson RS. Health care utilization
and costs associated with physical and non-physical intimate partner violence.
Health Services Research 2009;44(3):1052-1067.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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