Attitudes of women towards intimate partner violence in Guyana: A cross-sectional analytical study

Gary Joseph; Luis Paulo Vidaletti; Cona Husbands; Lisa Edwards; Michelle K. James; Charles C. Branas; Christopher N. Morrison

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0303902

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 18, 2023
9 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Md. Moyazzem Hossain, Editor PONE-D-23-38372Attitudes of women towards justifying domestic violence in Guyana: a national surveyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. JOSEPH, 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. Update the Introduction and Discussion section based on the most recent papers published on this topic. The authors write “We then used a backward procedure to exclude variables with p-value > 0.2…”. It is necessary to add the justification/references for choosing 0.2. Add the justification for selecting covariates for this study. Add the model fitting results in the Results section. Add strengths and limitations of the study ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by May 24 2024 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, Md. Moyazzem Hossain 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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 5. 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. 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: It has been said about the attitude survey tool that it is standard. Did the researcher make it? did check validity and reliability? How is the attitude measurement tool standardized?? Used its in a similar study? In the methodology part, it is mentioned the interview with the studied samples and again in the next few lines it is mentioned the yes and no questions that check the attitude. As a result, it is not clear for the reader that the method of data collection for attitude . interview? questionnaire? Have you visited people's homes and collected data? Have they visited the community health centers and accessed the samples? The method of data collection is unclear. The type of study is not clearly stated. analytical? Cross-sectional description? The questions used to check the attitude seem to be the reality in married life. The fact that my wife burns food and the answer is yes or no is actually checking the behavior of my life partner. It seems that he did not examine the attitude questions. Is the attitude high? does not mean anything ?Attitude is usually reported as positive and negative became . Reviewer #2: The work is amazing and I loved to read it. Though the topic is very interesting and sensitive but the manuscript is very well written. More work is needed to ensure women right. However,Congratulations to all the authors. ****** 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 ******** [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: Review.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303902.r001
Revision 1
30 Apr 2024 Author Response Response to reviewers Update the Introduction and Discussion section based on the most recent papers published on this topic. Reply: We thank the reviewers for this comment. We have reviewed the citations provided in both the Introduction and Discussion section, and updated the citations based on the most recent papers published on this topic. The authors write “We then used a backward procedure to exclude variables with p-value > 0.2…”. It is necessary to add the justification/references for choosing 0.2. Reply: We thank the reviewers for this comment. However, there was an error in the write-up. Although this cut-off can be utilized in a regression model as per the literature, in our analysis, we omitted variables with a p-value > 0.05. We have made the necessary revisions and included references to support our approach. Add the justification for selecting covariates for this study. Reply: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We now provide justification for selecting the covariates used in the study. “Several independent variables were assessed in this study. We selected these variables based on their availability in the survey, and on previous studies demonstrating that these variables were associated with women’s attitudes justifying IPV against women” Add the model fitting results in the Results section. Reply: Done Add strengths and limitations of the study Reply: Done Strengths and limitations Our study had strengths and limitations. We used data from MICS6 in Guyana that was designed to provide estimates that are representative at both national and regional level. MICS are international household surveys launched by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and have been conducted in 120 LMICs since 1990 to date. We showed the magnitude of inequalities between subcategories of women as well as key factors that are associated with women’s attitudes towards justifying IPV against women. Such findings have policy implications and may guide policymakers in identifying the subgroups that deserve more attention. However, because the study used data from a cross-sectional survey, we cannot establish causal inference between the covariates and the outcomes. The reliability and validity of the instrument used by MICS to measures women’s attitudes about IPV against women are still uncertain. However, these questions on women’s attitudes about IPV against women have been used for decades to measures such attitudes in several countries. Furthermore, we limited our study to physical IPV because MICS 2019 only collected data on attitudes towards physical violence, and excluded all the other forms of IPV against women. There is a lack of study in the literature assessing women’s attitudes about IPV against women for any of these ten reasons, which limited the comparison of our findings with studies from other settings. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission Reply: We thank the editorial team for this remark. We decided to remove figure 1 from our manuscript to adhere to PLOS ONE copyright guidelines on Figures publication. Reviewer #1: It has been said about the attitude survey tool that it is standard. Did the researcher make it? did check validity and reliability? How is the attitude measurement tool standardized? Used its in a similar study? Reply: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. However, it's important to clarify that we specified in the Materials and Methods section that our study utilized secondary data from MICS, and we did not conduct the survey ourselves. As for the standardization of the survey tool, we acknowledged it as a limitation of our study. Nevertheless, the questions employed to assess women's attitudes towards wife-beating by a husband have been utilized for decades in over 120 countries for this purpose. Additionally, all the questions underwent pre-testing before the commencement of the fieldwork. In the methodology part, it is mentioned the interview with the studied samples and again in the next few lines it is mentioned the yes and no questions that check the attitude. As a result, it is not clear for the reader that the method of data collection for attitude . interview? questionnaire? Reply: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The methodology used by MICS to collect the data are now provided, and with reference. “MICS surveys are conducted using Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) technology. Standard procedures and programs developed under the global MICS program were adapted for the Guyana MICS6 final questionnaires, and were consistently applied. The CAPI application was pre-tested in urban- rural, and interior areas of regions 3 and 4 in March 2019. Based on the results of the testing phase, adjustments were made to the questionnaires and application. Prior to commencing fieldwork, all interviewers received comprehensive training on questionnaire application and data collection techniques. Team supervisors were tasked with daily oversight of fieldwork activities. Additionally, a mandatory re-interviewing process was implemented for one household within each cluster. Continuous monitoring of interviewer skills and performance was conducted on a daily basis”. Have you visited people's homes and collected data? Have they visited the community health centers and accessed the samples? Reply: We thank the reviewer for this comment. As explained earlier, we only used secondary data from MICS to conduct this study. “We used data from a publicly available survey conducted in Guyana in 2019. This survey was designed to provide estimates on the situation of women aged 15 to 49 years at the national level, for urban and rural place of residence and for the ten administrative regions”. The method of data collection is unclear. Reply: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. More details are now provided on the method of data collection as explain earlier. “We used data from a publicly available survey conducted in Guyana in 2019. This survey was designed to provide estimates on the situation of women aged 15 to 49 years at the national level, for urban and rural place of residence and for the ten administrative regions. In each region, the urban and rural areas were identified as the main sampling strata, and the household sample was selected in two stages. Within each stratum, a specified number of enumeration districts (EDs) were systematically selected with probability proportional to their size. Before the starting of the fieldwork, listing of the households within the EDs was carried out, and a systematic sample of 20 households was obtained from each sample ED, totalizing 435 EDs and 8,700 households for the survey. In total, 5,887 women aged 15 to 49 years were interviewed, which represented a response rate of 89.5%. The survey used standardized questionnaires to collect data on several sociodemographic, geographic location, and media access and attitude indicators for women in reproductive age (15 to 49 years). MICS surveys are conducted using Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) technology. Standard procedures and programs developed under the global MICS program were adapted for the Guyana MICS6 final questionnaires, and were consistently applied. The CAPI application was pre-tested in urban- rural, and interior areas of regions 3 and 4 in March 2019. Based on the results of the testing phase, adjustments were made to the questionnaires and application. Prior to commencing fieldwork, all interviewers received comprehensive training on questionnaire application and data collection techniques. Team supervisors were tasked with daily oversight of fieldwork activities. Additionally, a mandatory re-interviewing process was implemented for one household within each cluster. Continuous monitoring of interviewer skills and performance was conducted on a daily basis”. The type of study is not clearly stated. analytical? Cross-sectional description? Reply: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The study design is now provide in the Title of the study. “Attitudes of women towards intimate partner violence in Guyana: a cross-sectional analytical study”. The questions used to check the attitude seem to be the reality in married life. The fact that my wife burns food and the answer is yes or no is actually checking the behavior of my life partner. Reply: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. It's worth noting that these questions are standardized by both MICS and the Demographic Health Survey (DHS) to measure such attitudes among both men and women across more than 200 countries. However, we acknowledge this aspect as a limitation of our findings. It seems that he did not examine the attitude questions. Reply: We thank the reviewer for this comment. However, we used the exact same questions used by MICS to assess women’s attitudes about intimate partner violence to conduct this study. Is the attitude high? does not mean anything ?Attitude is usually reported as positive and negative became . Reply: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. While we acknowledge that there are various methods to measure an outcome variable, including different question formats, it's important to recognize that the Yes/No questions used by MICS to assess women's attitudes towards justifying intimate partner violence against women in Guyana, is being used in more than 120 to assess such attitudes. Additionally, the option of providing both positive and negative responses can be comparable to a Yes/No format. Furthermore, it's worth noting that these questions underwent pre-testing in Guyana before the commencement of the fieldwork. We hope that these questions will be validated in the near future. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303902.r002
3 May 2024 Decision Letter - Md. Moyazzem Hossain, Editor Attitudes of women towards intimate partner violence in Guyana: a cross-sectional analytical study PONE-D-23-38372R1 Dear Dr. JOSEPH, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Md. Moyazzem Hossain 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 ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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 have carefully made all the necessary corrections and provided a complete explanation. These amendments have been accepted and I have no special opinion. 1. The study presents the results of original research. ok 2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere.ok 3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.ok 4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.ok 5. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English.ok 6. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.ok 7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.ok ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303902.r003
Formally Accepted
9 May 2024 Acceptance Letter - Md. Moyazzem Hossain, Editor PONE-D-23-38372R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Joseph, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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 Professor Md. Moyazzem Hossain Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303902.r004

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 .