Title: Exposure to interparental violence and intimate partner violence among women in Papua
New Guinea
Version: 2 Date: 16 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  chuka emezue
Reviewer's report:
Title: Exposure to inter-parental violence and intimate partner violence among women in Papua
New Guinea
1. Please look closer at the non-inclusive language used to describe the gendered prevalence
of IPV – in the first paragraph of the Introduction. [“Even though both sexes experience IPV,
the rate is disproportionately high among women compared to men [3]]. Rephrase to remove
the gender binary. Keep in mind the relatively higher prevalence of IPV for trans and gender
nonbinary folks or folx.
2. At the onset, the authors should clarify the difference between inter-parental violence and
IPV experience. Also, include statistics for the prevalence of inter-parental violence in PNG.
This section pays little to no background attention to inter-parental violence, considering it is
one of the main variables of interest.
3. Discrepancies in rural IPV prevalence: Women living in rural areas had both a high and low
likelihood of IPV in some parts of this paper. Please resolve these discrepancies. For example,
on Page 13 [we found that women living in rural areas had a lower likelihood of IPV experience
[aOR=O.50, 95% CI=0.32, 0.80] compared to those in urban settings.], on Page 7 [With the
place of residence, IPV was higher among rural women (88.8%) compared to urban women
(11.2%).], on Page 9 [With the place of residence, we established that women who were living
in rural settings exhibited a lower likelihood of IPV experience [aOR=O.50, 95% CI=0.32, 0.80]
relative to women living in urban settings.]
4. When the authors refer to "maternal age," do they assume that all of the girls and women in
the sample were mothers, or are they using the WHO’s definition of reproductive age for women
(15-49)? Please clarify.
5. Please clarify why Southern Region needs to be compared to Highlands Region. Why were
other regions of Papua New Guinea not considered?
6. Typos:
a. Page 8 [“*P-vale”]
b. On pages 4-5 - Please clarify the spelling for “conflict tactile scale”
c. Page 15 [“The authors decare that they have no competing interest”]
d. Other typos noted.
7. Methods
a. This section is well-written and developed. However, the authors state that Dutton’s ecological
model guided their analysis but do not show how in the methods section. In fact, Dutton’s model
is only mentioned when the authors say this model was used. This was done in an ostensible
manner. Please show how this model informed your study/analysis.
b. Please clarify why the designation for ‘Exposure to mass media’ was coded into “none,”
“one,” and “two or more” – does this capture number of mass media PNG women were exposed
to?
8. Results:
a. The first time primary sampling units (PSUs) is used, it was not spelled out – see page 9.
b. When the fixed and random effects model are reported, this information contains a lot of
jargon and is statistically dense. Please keep as is - but explain what these associations and
variations mean for the lay reader. For example, what does it mean for “This explains that the
variations in the likelihood of IPV could be attributed to the differences in the clustering at the
primary sampling units (PSUs).”
c. Page 13 – when the authors say, “Nonetheless, the results of this study are inconsistent with
prior studies in Uganda [48], and sub-Saharan Africa [69],” why is Uganda a basis of comparison
specifically?
9. Some statements seem to have syntax errors, for example:
a. At this level, the relationship dynamics, family dynamics, and history of previous exposure
to violence, including inter-parental violence.
b. The following were the precise questions used to assess physical, emotional, and sexual
violence have been published elsewhere in the literature [35, 36, 37, 38, 39].
c. IPV may be used as an aspect of endangered men’s control methods over female spouses [71].
d. Page 15 – avoid the use of contractions [don’t].
10. Discussion
a. The discussion section reads like a bibliography of your findings. Mainly the authors recap
prevalence statistics and compare these with other countries – with no explanation for what
these countries have in common with PNG. While this inter-country comparison is helpful
information, it cannot be the bulk of the discussion section. Instead, the authors are advised
to 1) begin this section by recapping the main significant and non-significant findings. 2)
Contextualize possible rationale and indications for these results in PNG - using Dutton’s nested
ecological model. The authors state this model guided their analysis but do not show how. The
model is mentioned once in the entire paper, in an ostensible manner; 3) Consider suggesting
future avenues for research to current literature (and future directions in the field). 4) Optional:
Since this is the first DHS from PNG, add one or two recommendations for capturing other
dynamics of IPV that may be unique to PNG. This can enrich future DHS sampling.
b. This assertion is inconsistent as to whether physical IPV in PNG is comparable to or less
than IPV in Bangladesh: [The current study's prevalence of physical violence is consistent with
previous findings in Bangladesh [52] and Gabon [39], which revealed the prevalence to be 44.4%
and 45.4%, correspondingly. Physical violence was more prevalent in this study than it was in
Bangladesh [51] and India [56, 57].]