Association between intimate partner violence and male alcohol use and the receipt of perinatal care: Evidence from Nepal demographic and health survey 2011–2016

Blessing Akombi-Inyang; Pramesh Raj Ghimire; Elizabeth Archibong; Emma Woolley; Husna Razee

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0259980

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 7, 2021
18 Aug 2021 Decision Letter - Sandi Dheensa, Editor PONE-D-21-11367 Association between intimate partner violence and male alcohol use and the receipt of perinatal care Evidence from Nepal demographic and health survey 2001–2016 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Akombi-Inyang, 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 Oct 02 2021 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Sandi Dheensa 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ Additional Editor Comments (if provided): As well as addressing reviewer comments, please address the following: - PLOS ONE has a publication critiera that says 'studies involving humans categorized by race/ethnicity, age, disease/disabilities, religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, or other socially constructed groupings, authors should explicitly describe their methods of categorizing human populations'. Given this, please can you explain why you use the following groupings for ethnicity? Brahmin/Chettri, Janajati including newar, Dalit, others including Muslim. Is this a standard way to categorise ethnicities in Nepal? - Please describe the contributions of all authors - see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/authorship for guidance - Please use the apropriate reporting guidelines to report your work - see here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines The STROBE cross sectional checklist might be the most appropriate for you - Please rephrase the following sentence 'However, the role of male alcohol consumption in shaping the extent of IPV as well as its influence on the receipt of perinatal care cannot be over-emphasized' - this sentence does not make sense in the current place in the manuscript as you have not yet shown what the role of alcohol is. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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 is a manuscript on secondary data analysis, exploring the association of intimate partner violence (IPV) and male alcohol use on the receipt of perinatal care. The study objective is timely, and on target. I have some comments mostly on the statistical analysis side: (a) The dependent variable "perinatal care" has been explained in a separate section, however, it was not made clear the exact nature of the response, i.e., is it a binary response (which I think it is), or something else. If binary, clearly mention how the cutoff was determined. It is not clear. (b) Taylor series linearization method was employed to calculate the variance estimates; some more details needed for the reader. Is it automatic inside Stata? (c) Please explain why both logit and binomial family was used under the Generalized linear latent and mixed modeling. Where is the mixed modeling coming from (like, what is the cluster)? Be clear. What is the context of binomial modeling? (d) No goodness-of-fit measures were provided; see below (STATA may have such a command) https://www.stata-journal.com/article.html?article=st0099 (e) A small sample size/power description may allow readers to understand what effect size the authors wanted to achieve before conducting the analysis, and the appropriateness of the sample size. You may ignore the survey weighting while calculating the power, if such a program, or method doesn't exist. Reviewer #2: This paper used the 2011 and 2016 Nepal Demographic and Health Surveys to look at the association between IPV, male alcohol use and perinatal care. The introduction should be reorganized to flow better and focus on the context of Nepal. The paper can be strengthened by expanding upon why the analysis methods were chosen. Reviewer #3: The 2011 and 2016 NDHS data is used together and analysed. But it was not clear that both instruments and methods were the same. It should be explained in methods. Analysis The 2011 and 2016 NDHS data were combined and analysed. No effort was taken to show that both samples and findings are similar. It is difficult to assume that the factors are unchanged over a 5-year interval and here it looks like the two different data sets are combined and analysed to get results. the combination of two data sets seems to be purely for the increase in sample size without considering any other factors. An option is to compare and contrast the data set before combining both. In this combination, authors can compare the similarities of key factors such as IPV, alcohol consumption and ANC care. If both data sets are similar, they can be combined and analysed. if not it's good to analyze it separately and compare. ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes:** Muzrif Munas [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: PONE-D-21-11367.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259980.r001
Revision 1
29 Sep 2021 Author Response Editor comments Comment: PLOS ONE has a publication criterion that says 'studies involving humans categorized by race/ethnicity, age, disease/disabilities, religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, or other socially constructed groupings, authors should explicitly describe their methods of categorizing human populations'. Given this, please can you explain why you use the following groupings for ethnicity? Brahmin/Chettri, Janajati including newar, Dalit, others including Muslim. Is this a standard way to categorise ethnicities in Nepal? Response: Thank you for your comment. The listed groupings for ethnicity in the study are the recognised ethnic groups in Nepal and are reported as such in all Nepalese Demography and Health Surveys (2006, 2011 and 2016). In Nepal, Brahmin/Chettri is considered as advantaged ethnic group and belongs to the top of ethnic hierarchy whereas Janajati including Newar, and Dalit are relatively disadvantaged and socioeconomically marginalized groups. Others including Muslim are different group of people who are neither Brahmin/Chettri nor Dalit or Janajati and has been categorised as others including Muslim. Some of these have been discussed in the final report of NDHS (2011-2016). Please see https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR336/FR336.pdf Comment: Please describe the contributions of all authors – see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/authorship for guidance Response: Thank you for your advice. However, the document you shared provides information on PLOS ONE’s authorship policies and does not state that the information should be included in the manuscript. Furthermore, following PLOS ONE’s submission guidelines (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-style-and-format), there is no section within the manuscript where authors’ contribution is solicited. However, we have clearly indicated each authors’ contribution in the submission system as advised in PLOS ONE’s authorship policy. Comment: Please use the appropriate reporting guidelines to report your work - see here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines The STROBE cross sectional checklist might be the most appropriate for you Response: Thank you for your advice. We adhered strictly to PLOS ONE’s submission guidelines as outlined in https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines. We also adhered to STROBE cross sectional study checklist to the extent suitable for our study given that our study is based on secondary data analysis. Comment: Please rephrase the following sentence 'However, the role of male alcohol consumption in shaping the extent of IPV as well as its influence on the receipt of perinatal care cannot be over-emphasized' - this sentence does not make sense in the current place in the manuscript as you have not yet shown what the role of alcohol is. Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have considered your comment and revised the manuscript accordingly. The manuscript now reads “However, the role of male alcohol consumption in shaping the extent of IPV as well as its influence on the receipt of perinatal care is still largely uncertain”. Please see lines 127 - 129. Reviewer #1 comment This is a manuscript on secondary data analysis, exploring the association of intimate partner violence (IPV) and male alcohol use on the receipt of perinatal care. The study objective is timely, and on target. I have some comments mostly on the statistical analysis side: Comment: (a) The dependent variable "perinatal care" has been explained in a separate section, however, it was not made clear the exact nature of the response, i.e., is it a binary response (which I think it is), or something else. If binary, clearly mention how the cutoff was determined. It is not clear. Response: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the manuscript to make clear the nature of the response as follows: “The dependent variables of this study were based on the uptake of the three perinatal care services and coded as ‘0’ [if respondents reported 4 or more ANC visits, if the deliveries took place in a health facility, or if the deliveries were assisted by doctors, nurses, or midwives]; and ‘1’ [if respondents did not report 4 or more ANC visits, if the deliveries did not take place in a health facility, or if the deliveries were not assisted by doctors, nurses, or midwives]”. Please see lines 215 – 220. Comment: (b) Taylor series linearization method was employed to calculate the variance estimates; some more details needed for the reader. Is it automatic inside Stata? Response: Thank you for your comment. However, we believe that the information provided on the Taylor series linearization method is sufficient to provide the reader with the necessary details to validate our analysis. Comment: (c) Please explain why both logit and binomial family was used under the Generalized linear latent and mixed modeling. Where is the mixed modeling coming from (like, what is the cluster)? Be clear. What is the context of binomial modeling? Response: First of all, we would like to highlight that when the link function is the logit function, the binomial regression becomes the well-known logistic regression. Both the logit and binomial family was used because Generalized linear latent and Mixed Models (GLLAMM) is a stata program to fit multilevel latent variable models for (multivariate) responses of mixed type including counts, duration, ordered and unordered categorical responses [Please see: Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A. Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata. STATA press; 2008]. To use GLLAMM program in stata, it is mandatory to first identify the link and corresponding family; and therefore, both the logit and corresponding family (binomial) were used. In the past, we have extensively used this program to fit multivariate regression models that also adjust for multi-stage clustering and sampling weights for complex survey design like DHS [Please see: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12884-019-2234-6; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202603 Comment: (d) No goodness-of-fit measures were provided; see below (STATA may have such a command) https://www.stata-journal.com/article.html?article=st0099 Response: Thank you for the important comment, and we have performed Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test [Please see https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1536867X0600600106], and the text below has been added into the revised manuscript. “After fitting multivariate logistic regression models, Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was performed by using ‘svylogitgof’ command in stata which showed non-significant results (p>0.05) suggesting adequate fit”. Please see lines 226 – 228. Comment: (e) A small sample size/power description may allow readers to understand what effect size the authors wanted to achieve before conducting the analysis, and the appropriateness of the sample size. You may ignore the survey weighting while calculating the power, if such a program, or method doesn't exist. Response: This study was based on secondary data analysis of 2011 and 2016 NDHS which were nationally representative surveys with an average response rate of 97%. The sample size has already been calculated for each DHS (Please see individual DHS report for NDHS 2011 and 2016). However, we adjusted for difference in cluster and survey weight. Reviewer #2 comment This paper used the 2011 and 2016 Nepal Demographic and Health Surveys to look at the association between IPV, male alcohol use and perinatal care. The introduction should be reorganized to flow better and focus on the context of Nepal. The paper can be strengthened by expanding upon why the analysis methods were chosen. Comment: 1. Further description on factors that affect maternal mortality for women in Nepal specifically will be helpful. Response: Thank you for your comment. Our study is focused primarily on perinatal care in Nepal and as such our narrative is in-line with the direction of our study. We recognize the impact perinatal care has on maternal mortality and has briefly acknowledged that. However, further discussion on the factors that affect maternal mortality for women in Nepal is out of the scope of our study. Comment: 2. It would be useful to outline other pathways by which IPV reduces uptake of perinatal care services outside from decision making and poor mental health. Response: Thank you for your comment. To the extent of our literature review and based on WHO report, we have identified and hence acknowledge these pathways through which IPV reduces uptake of perinatal care services. As we identify more pathways, we will be including them in our upcoming studies. Comment: 3. Make sure there is consistency in using the term perinatal care and antenatal care. Response: Thank you for your comment. We have included a definition of perinatal care and antenatal care through which we believe will address any ambiguity in the use of the terms in our manuscript. The manuscript now reads: “Within the continuum of care, perinatal care is the care given to women from pregnancy through to one year after childbirth with antenatal care and postnatal care being care given before and after childbirth respectively”. Please see lines 80-82. Comment: 4. The statement about mothers-in-law and their role seems misplaced. Either expand upon their role and how this relates to IPV or take it out. Response: Thank you for your comment. We agree that the statement seems misplaced and have taken it out. Comment: 5. Why are only 4 or more ANC visits considered use of ANC when the recommendation is 8? Response: Thank you for your comment. Though WHO recommends 8 ANC visits, Nepal still uphold 4 ANC visits as the national standard, and this is what is reported in Nepal Demography and Health Surveys (DHS). The manuscript has been revised to reflect this information. The manuscript now reads: In Nepal, standard ANC services include at least four ANC visits (first at the fourth month, second at the sixth month, third at the eighth month, and fourth at the ninth month of pregnancy). Please see lines 92 – 94. Comment: 6. Clarification and a reason as to why this analysis plan was chosen would strengthen the statistical methods. Response: We do not quite understand this comment. We believe that the analysis is self-explanatory. First, we estimated prevalence, and their 95% CI to understand the characteristics of study sample, followed by fitting multivariate logistic regression model while taking into account cluster and sampling weights (specific to violence module) to understand the impact of male alcohol use and IPV on the uptake of perinatal care services in Nepal. Comment: 1. Line 104-105 in the introduction needs a citation. Response: Thank you for your comment. A citation has now been added. Please line 112. Comment: 2. Line 124-127 needs a citation. Response: Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, we could not find a suitable citation for the suggested statement. Therefore, we have removed the statement from the manuscript. Comment: 3. Line 139 needs a citation. Response: Thank you for your comment. A citation has now been added. Please see line 139. Reviewer #3 comment Comment: The 2011 and 2016 NDHS data is used together and analysed. But it was not clear that both instruments and methods were the same. It should be explained in methods. Response: Thank you for your comment. In the method section we clearly stated that DHS including Nepal DHS use standardized questionnaires, manuals, field procedures and sampling techniques that are comparable across countries and time. Please see lines 162 – 166. Comment: The 2011 and 2016 NDHS data were combined and analysed. No effort was taken to show that both samples and findings are similar. It is difficult to assume that the factors are unchanged over a 5-year interval and here it looks like the two different data sets are combined and analysed to get results. the combination of two data sets seems to be purely for the increase in sample size without considering any other factors. An option is to compare and contrast the data set before combining both. In this combination, authors can compare the similarities of key factors such as IPV, alcohol consumption and ANC care. If both data sets are similar, they can be combined and analysed. if not it's good to analyze it separately and compare. Response: This is a valid point indeed. However, the aim of this study was not to compare and contrast key factors between the two NDHS (NDHS 2011 and NDHS 2016), rather was to provide a stronger evidence based on a pooled dataset that also takes time dependent confounder (year of survey) into account. The inclusion of time dependent confounder (year of survey) in the regression analysis is to ensure our results are similar over a 5-year interval. We have clarified the inclusion of time dependent confounder (year of survey) in our method section of the revised manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259980.r002
22 Oct 2021 Decision Letter - Sandi Dheensa, Editor PONE-D-21-11367R1Association between intimate partner violence and male alcohol use and the receipt of perinatal care Evidence from Nepal demographic and health survey 2011–2016PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Akombi-Inyang, 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 Dec 06 2021 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Sandi Dheensa Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: (No Response) ******** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) 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: (No Response) 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: (No Response) 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: 1. Though it’s helpful to have the code in the statistical analysis section, it might be better be better placed in a table or annex rather than in the text. 2. What assumptions, if any, were made about the data in order to perform the statistical analysis? 3. Can you further explain how husband alcohol use was quantified (ie, if binary is it that the husband could range from drinking one drink to many in a day)? In the discussion the focus is on alcohol abuse by men, might me good to add in studies that focus on recreational alcohol use as well if the variable of husband alcohol use ranges from recreational use to abuse. 4. Might be important to talk about stigma about reporting IPV and how that could effect your results. ****** 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 [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: Review2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259980.r003
Revision 2
25 Oct 2021 Author Response Response to Reviewer 2 Comment 1: Though it’s helpful to have the code in the statistical analysis section, it might be better be better placed in a table or annex rather than in the text. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. However, after reviewing several similar publications we are of the opinion that the preferred way to ensure our study is well understood by the reader is to briefly include the coding in the statistical analysis section. We have also published numerous studies in PLOS ONE as well as in other journals giving the coding information in the statistical analysis section. Please see some similar publications below: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0236435 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202603 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223385 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0203278 https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2020/5487164/ Comment 2: What assumptions, if any, were made about the data in order to perform the statistical analysis? Response: Thank you for your comment. However, we do not fully understand your comment. Our study was based on secondary data analysis, and we have provided all necessary information in the statistical analysis section. All limitations to the study have also been stated in the limitation section. Comment 3: Can you further explain how husband alcohol use was quantified (ie, if binary is it that the husband could range from drinking one drink to many in a day)? In the discussion the focus is on alcohol abuse by men, might me good to add in studies that focus on recreational alcohol use as well if the variable of husband alcohol use ranges from recreational use to abuse. Response: In NDHS (2011-2016), women completing the violence module were asked - Does (did) your (last) (husband/partner) drink alcohol? and the results were recorded as binary (YES/NO). Data on quantity of alcohol consumption were not collected in NDHS. Therefore, this study is not able to distinguish if alcohol use by husband was recreational or abuse. Comment 4: Might be important to talk about stigma about reporting IPV and how that could effect your results. Response: Thank you for your comment. In the limitation section, we include "personal or sociocultural perceptions" as an unmeasured co-variate which might have been ruled out in the analysis. Stigma, we believe falls under that category. In addition, further discussion on stigma and how it impact on IPV is beyond the scope of our study. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259980.r004
2 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Sandi Dheensa, Editor Association between intimate partner violence and male alcohol use and the receipt of perinatal care Evidence from Nepal demographic and health survey 2011–2016 PONE-D-21-11367R2 Dear Dr. Akombi-Inyang, 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, Sandi Dheensa Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) 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: (No Response) 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: (No Response) 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: (No Response) 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259980.r005
Formally Accepted
18 Nov 2021 Acceptance Letter - Sandi Dheensa, Editor PONE-D-21-11367R2 Association between intimate partner violence and male alcohol use and the receipt of perinatal care: Evidence from Nepal demographic and health survey 2011–2016 Dear Dr. Akombi-Inyang: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Sandi Dheensa Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259980.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .