Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: A comparison of intimate partner and other sexual assault  survivors' use of different types 
of specialized hospital -based violence services  
 
Version: 0 Date: 14 Jun 2016  
 
Reviewer: Maziar Nourian  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Editing  
 Extra spacing on Page 5 line 38 -39. "by…Sexual"  
 
 Extra space on Page 7 line 21 -22 "client..was"  
 
 
 
 
Introduction   
 
 
1) What percentage of woman who are assaulted (by any type of assailant) go to the hospital 
at all to be seen by SANE nurses?  Are the woman in this study a representative sample 
of woman sexual assa ulted. Please provide citation .  
 
 
 
2) How are assailants distinguished? In the Logan 2007 they are distinguished by intimate 
partner, acquaintance, acquaintance just met, or stranger. Then in Stermac et al study 
assailants are distinguished by current/previ ous boyfriends and then acquaintance known 
for less/more than 24 hrs. Is there some form of standardization in the categories of 
assailants and how do these categories fit within this manuscript?  
 
 
 
3) As a follow up to #1, does current or former husband/boy friend (wife/girlfriend) have any 
effect on the results presented in the manuscript? Was that accounted for? As in would a 
utilization of hospital -based violence services be different between current and former 
partners instead of lumping them together.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Methods  
 
1) Was it known if any woman had any previous sexual assault training courses either 
provided during high school or college and could that have any effects on the categories?  
 
 
 
2) Did any of the participants of the study have any history previous sexua l abuse? Was this 
the first experience of sexual abuse for participants and could previous abuse history 
affect health service seeking behavior? Why wasn't this included in analysis?  
 
 
 
 
Discussion  
 
1) The study states that woman assaulted by current/former par tner less likely to receive 
prophalaxysis STI and HIV post exposure. The authors claim that forced vaginal/anal 
penetration increases risk for STI's. This would make sense for HIV but not necessarily 
for other STI's. If forced penetration is associated wit h other STI's please provide a 
citation.  
 
 
 
2) On page 12 line 7, authors state WHO "the importance of reducing ongoing risk within 
intimate relationship…" I am assuming authors are referencing to HIV risk. Please clarify 
possibly "reducing on going risk [of  HIV] within.."  
 
 
 
3) Woman assaulted by current/former are offered safety planning more than woman 
assaulted by strangers or acquaintances. Authors should explore why safety services 
aren't offered to woman assaulted by strangers and acquaintances.  
 
 
 
4) Autho r states that page 12 line 14. Woman sexual assaulted by an intimate partner less 
likely to have used medication to prevent pregnancy. Do the author's mean previous oral 
contraception use or emergency contraception? Please clarify. Also clarify who is 
admi nistering the emergency oral contraception? Are women taking this themselves 
before showing up to the hospital or is the hospital administering the emergency 
contraception?  
 
 
 
5) Authors claim that women who suffer and fear violence from partners don't use 
contraception without permission (reference 31). This citation is of worldwide data. Do 
these same conditions apply to the population within Toronto? Was there much variance 
among cultural/ethnic/demographic backgrounds of the manuscript study population?  
 
 
 
Table 2  
 
Please indicate how many people fell into the 3 categories at the top of the table (partner+ex - 
117, other known assailant -?, Stranger - 111) 
 
 
Why is social supports included in the Table 2 when it isn't mentioned in the methods, results, or 
discussio n? 
 
 
Disability is listed in Table 2 but should be mentioned in the methods section  
 
 
Where are the remaining p values? They are listed (even when not significant) in tables 2 and 3  
Table 3  
 
 
Please indicate how many people fell into the 3 categories at the top  of the table (partner+ex - 
117, other known assailant -?, Stranger - 111) 
 
 
Weapons are listed here but not mentioned in the methods section  
 
 
Table 4  
 
Please indicate how many people fell into the 3 categories at the top of the table (partner+ex - 
117, other kno wn assailant -?, Stranger - 111) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 t o 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.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manus cript:  
 
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, fu nding, 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 competing interests in relation to this paper?  
If you can answer no to al l 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 n ame 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 availa ble under a n 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