PONE-D-20-21187

Disparities in potential years of life lost due to intimate partner violence: Data from 16 states for 2006–2015

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Laurie M. Graham,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 23 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Xiangming Fang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3.  Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"We would like to thank the Caroline H. and Thomas S. Royster Fellowship awarded by the University of North

Carolina at Chapel Hill Graduate School and Injury and Violence Prevention Fellowship

awarded by the UNC Injury Prevention Research Center which supported, in part, LMG’s time

and effort on this research by supporting her pursuit of a doctoral degree.".

i) We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

ii) Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

 "The authors received no specific funding for this work.".

 iii) Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript, “Disparities in Potential Years of Life Lost Due to Intimate Partner Violence: Data from 16 States for 2006-2015” provides new data on the disproportionate burden of intimate partner violence (IPV)-related fatalities by calculating potential years of life lost (PYLL) by sex and race/ethnicity. The manuscript is well written and contributes to the literature by expressing the burden of IPV-related fatalities beyond incidence rates and by including corollary victims.

However, the manuscript could provide more context for the results of this study by relating it to what is already known about the disproportionate burden of IPV-related deaths. There are some clarifications and considerations that could improve the paper, addressed below.

Title: Appropriate

Abstract: Appropriate

Introduction:

• Provide more statistics for the current incidence/trends of IPV-related deaths by race and sex.

• This paper does a good job explaining or providing footnotes on each category. Considering adding or clarifying if the suspect is included in the count for IPH-suicide.

Methods:

• Were any other covariates considered or limited by data sources?

• Does this analysis account for regional differences?

Results:

• Clarify in Table 2 if “Suspect was law enforcement” means that law enforcement caused the death. It is a little

confusing in that there are potentially two suspects, the one who caused the death and the IPV perpetrator.

• The tables and footnotes are very helpful to see the results laid out.

Discussion:

• If appropriate, perhaps point out any known or informed conclusion that the impact of social distancing could have on

IPV-related fatalities.

• Consider including a comparison example of another disease or issues’ PYLL so the reader can have a general gauge on the total PYLL from IPV.

• I appreciate the notes on disparities of life expectance by race and how it relates to your findings and the limitation in regards to non-binary genders.

• Discuss how generalizable these results are or aren't and how resource allocation and targeted IPV prevention strategies should also explore the paper’s results stratified by region.

• It might be worth bringing up some research on implicit bias toward IPV and likelihood of arrests/receiving support which could prevent fatalities. For instance if the victim is white, the suspect is more likely to be arrested. (McCormack PD, Hirschel D. Race and the Likelihood of Intimate Partner Violence Arrest and Dual Arrest. Race and Justice. September 2018. doi:10.1177/2153368718802352)

Reviewer #2: General Review of the Paper:

The article “Disparities in potential years of life lost due to intimate partner violence: data from 16 states for 2006-2015” makes a significant contribution to the field of public health by exploring the societal costs of intimate partner violence (IPV). The literature review was well-written and sufficiently identified the gaps in existing IPV research. The focus on disparities as it related to both the number of IPV-related deaths and in the potential years of life lost due to IPV-related deaths is an innovative focus and significant contribution to the literature. The analyses also included analysis of perpetrator-victim relationships, which is important and informative for prevention programming. Limitations of the research included the use of a general life expectancy in order to address disparities, despite knowledge of disparities in life expectancy amongst racial groups; however, the authors offered a well-justified explanation for this decision. Additional feedback for the authors according to manuscript section is provided below.

TITLE AND ABSTRACT

• The title is appropriate.

• The abstract was comprehensive. One additional consideration might be the addition of the analyses documenting the victim -suspect relationship by fatality types.

INTRODUCTION

• This section summarizes the current literature and identifies the gaps in current research. It is well written and does a nice job justifying the research questions.

• Line 74-75: Are there any targeted prevention efforts that have been successful, or would these need to be developed and tested based on study results. Add a bit more clarification to this statement.

METHODS

• This section was well-written. There is one point that deserves more clarification (lines 121-125). Was a pre-existing NVDRS variable used or was a new variable created through narrative review (or a mixture of both).

RESULTS

• Clear and informative

DISCUSSION

• Note as a limitation that the differences in state density and racial and ethnic group composition among the 16 NVDRS states were not accounted for in analyses.

• Researchers should consider briefly mentioning other individual (SES, Education) and community level (crime, poverty level)variables that impact disparities that could be explored in future research.

• In reference to corollary victims being male more often than female, researchers might consider adding a statement about how young boys are subjected to physical child abuse more than girls.

o A future study direction about exploring the ages of corollary victims could also be added.

TABLES/FIGURES

• The tables were generally informative and comprehensive.

• For Table 1, the inclusion of full-dataset number and percentages seemed unnecessary since the analysis was based on the reduced dataset.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Jyll Walsh

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Article Review 10.07.20.docx

Disparities in potential years of life lost due to intimate partner violence: Data from 16 states for 2006–2015

PONE-D-20-21187R1

Dear Dr. Graham,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Xiangming Fang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors appropriately addressed all the comments I had submitted within the article or in the review commentary. I have no further edits for this article.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No