Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: A qualitative exploration of 'thrivership' among women who have experienced domestic 
violence and abuse: Development of a new model  
 
Version: 0 Date: 12 Apr 2019  
 
Reviewer: Stephanie Arteaga  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The topic of this paper is very interesting and I enjoyed reading it very much. It is very wel l 
written and offers great insight into the concept of "thrivership" for women who have 
experienced domestic violence and abuse. The authors do a wonderful job of identifying the gaps 
they are aiming to fill and the developed model is impressive. What is l acking is a detailed 
description about the methods and, most importantly, the sample characteristics. Additionally, 
the authors could work to make more meaning of their results in the discussion and provide more 
concrete recommendations as to the applicati on of their model. While I understand this paper is 
about women who experience DVA at the hands of male partners (although not sure this is 
explicitly stated), authors should be careful to not minimize the experiences of men who 
experience DVA, as well as women who experience DVA in same -sex relationships.  
Abstract: Th authors suggest that DVA is a "gendered phenomenon." This minimizes the 
experiences of men who have experienced DVA in intimate relationships. While this is noted in 
the limitations, it woul d be beneficial to engage this this in the introduction and perhaps re -word 
this sentence in the abstract, as it will be the first thing readers will be exposed to. It is okay to 
focus on heterosexual women here, but careful language should be used to expl ain why and that 
this is not a phenomenon that applies only to heterosexual women.   
Introduction: The introduction would benefit from a more detailed explanation of DVA. What is 
DVA? What sorts of things constitute DVA (physical and emotional abuse?) Whi le there a bits 
in the first few paragraphs that can lead readers to draw a conclusion about this, it would be good 
to provide a clear definition for readers.  
P3, Lines 44 -48: This definition of thriving does not seem relevant to the paper and kind of thr ew 
me off while reading, specifically the plant's life cycle and birth and fertility bit. If authors want 
to use this, they should better tie it to DVA.  
Methods: In general, the methods could use more detail to give us a better picture of the sample 
and, therefore, to the applicability of the results. I found myself often wondering about the 
sample as I read the paper. Who are the women we are reading about?  
Recruitment: A clear statement of the eligibility requirements is crucial, even if it is not 
exten sive. If the only eligibility requirement was they they utilize services from this specific 
DVA service provider, then authors should state that and give a a brief explanation of the types 
of services they provide or the profile of their clientele. I under stand the need for privacy and 
anonymity, but the paper suffers from the lack of this information. Additionally, if the authors 
know anything about the women who were not able to participate, and if they in some way 
differed or didn't from those that did p articipate, it should be stated that here.  
Participant details: It is mentioned that one participant was still with the perpetrator but no other 
information is given about this participant. How was her data used? Was it included with the 
others? This brin gs up, again, the bigger question about the sample and who the women in your 
study are. What stages were they at in the experience of life post -DVA? Are they speaking from 
experience (have they all reached thrivership at some point)? Is it possible to reac h thrivership 
when still in a relationship with the DVA perpetrator?  
Data collection: The authors provide information on focus group data collection but not the 
interviews. More detailed info is needed here - what questions were asked, how were qual tools  
developed, how did FGs differs from interviews, if at all, etc.  
Data Analysis: Again, more detail is needed to ensure rigor in the analysis process. Why where 
there three rounds of coding, and what happened in between each round? Who conducted these 
rounds of coding? Was there a codebook and, if so, how was it developed? No software was used 
but how did you organize your data? Did you use coding matrices? Additionally, more 
information about participant feedback is necessary here. Did they mostly agree wi th your 
findings? How was their feedback incorporated? How many times did you engage them for 
feedback? This section is substantially lacking. I would include as much as possible about your 
process.  
Findings: In general, this section is organized well an d good quotes are used to illustrate 
findings. My main comment is, again, about the sample. The findings would be better 
contextualized if we knew more about the women in the sample. How long had it been since they 
had experienced DVA. What stages were the y in? Were they speaking about violent abuse, 
phycological abuse, both? (I understand they are not always mutually exclusive, but that can also 
be stated.)  
P5, Line 42: Would be interesting to know what the two women who disagreed thought.  
P5, Line 48: I  find it interesting that women disliked the term "victim" and that it was still used 
and included in the model. Why?  
P8, Line 10: Styles on quotes are inconsistent throughout the results (some IDs italicized, some 
not; dash used changes throughout). Needs  editing for consistency.  
P12, Line 21: The quote from participant 25 was used in a previous section of the results.  
P12, Line 35: Is the statement about self -forgiveness in the early stage a direct finding from the 
focus groups? It is not clear.  
P13, Line 25: The outlier finding here is interesting. I would suggest adding more of these 
throughout the results (if there are any in the data).  
Discussion: Th discussion would be strengthened by providing more concrete recommendations. 
Specifically, ho w can this model be used to help women thrive after DVA? What are the 
implications for research, for public health practice, for clinical practice? Some of these things 
are alluded to, but I did not walk away with a clear sense of the ways in which this ne w model 
could be implemented. Seeing as how this topic is so important for women's health, it would be 
good to provide more concrete recommendations. I also think it's worth bringing men into this 
conversation. While I agree that it is very important to su pport women in thriving after DVA, I 
think it's important to be cautious not to frame this in a way that makes it seem like helping 
women thrive after DVA is the ultimate goal - the ultimate goal should be to stop FVA from 
happening at all. I understand th at is not the topic of this paper, but I do think it needs to be 
addressed, even not extensively so. Including some conversation around perpetrators and 
upstream factors that could stop DVA from happening at all would be useful here. There is some 
mention about education, but is that enough?  
Are the methods appropriate and well descri bed?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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.  
 
Yes 
 
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.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interes ts 
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 publ ication 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 current ly 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 competing 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 det ails 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