PONE-D-24-02046Spatial distribution and determinants of Physical Intimate Partner Violence among women in Kenya: Evidence from the 2022 Kenya Demographic and Health SurveyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ayebeng,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

• Please, carefully review all the Reviewers' comments and respond appropriately. Where you disagree, provide point-by-point explanation of why you disagree with their comments.

=============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 09 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,

Adobea Yaa Owusu, MA, PhD, MPH

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. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

3. We note that [Figures 2 and 3] 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 Figures 2 and 3 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/

[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: I congratulate the authors on the manuscript. Overall, it is well-written and publishable. The idea of spatial variation is an interesting one. Indeed, it is wrong to assume that a unified approach in a country, especially in Africa where cultural and gender norms vary. Hence, attitude towards IPV and the experience of it may vary across locations.

Overall, I have two general comments. One, the spatial analysis employed by the authors is merely descriptive. It only shows that physical IPV is higher in one place than another. But is that enough? How does the influence of those factors vary across different regions? The author may be surprised to find that a factor that is significant in one location is insignificant in another. In fact, the authors may find that a particular variable predicts IPV in opposite directions in two different regions. Please see the work of my colleague, Ramsden in Nigeria. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932022000463 The authors may want to group different locations into two, three, or four and see how the influence of the factors varies across regions. This is important for policy implementation.

Secondly, the authors, like many previous authors, assume a uni-directional association between IPV justification and IPV experience. The authors mentioned this a few times from the abstract, results and discussion section. For example, the authors stated, “…we found that women who endorse violence are more likely to experience physical violence from their intimate partner. This finding is expected because women who justify violence or accept that their partners are right to act violently in certain scenarios are more likely to be tolerant of intimate partner violence.” I doubt if this is the case with DHS data. I can argue convincingly in the opposite direction. If a woman has experienced IPV, for example, she is more likely to justify it than a woman who has never had experience. It is common for human beings to justify things they do or have experienced. To the best of my knowledge and what I read in the work of Ramsden in Nigeria, the association is bi-directional. The authors may want to further contribute to the knowledge of IPV in Kenya by running an analysis using IPV experience as the independent variable and IPV justification as the dependent.

In the introduction, the authors should explore the DHS and state the proportion of women who have experienced different forms of IPV: physical, emotional and sexual. I predict that the rate of physical IPV will be higher than emotional and sexual. This will allow the paper to establish physical IPV as a major problem that requires attention.

To my surprise, the authors were also silent on the explanations for regional differences in the experience of IPV. Only the second paragraph of the introduction was dedicated to discussing the variations, but no explanation was provided based on the knowledge of the regions in Kenya. Based on the authors’ knowledge of the regions, what could explain the variations? Is any of the seven authors from Kenya? I see that all of them are based in Ghana.

Please do some proofreading of the manuscript for typo and grammar errors. You wrote “marita status” in the table on page 21.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The paper is worthwhile – especially considering the persistence of IPV in sub-Saharan Africa. Below I note some comments and concerns that will help improve the paper.

Introduction

The introduction does not provide a compelling case for why the study is important, particularly within the Kenyan context. Why is Physical IPV a serious issue in Kenya? What makes it endure? What are the effects of this form of IPV, etc.? Also, justify the focus on physical violence and not the other forms.

The last two sentences of the first paragraph - “Globally, approximately 30 per cent of women have been exposed to intimate physical violence. While in Kenya, approximately 35 per cent of women experience physical violence orchestrated by their intimate partners”. The second sentence is incomplete. I suggest putting a comma between the two sentences might make the comparison clearer.

Methods

Outcome variable- please specify if this is lifetime violence or just in the past twelve months.

Results

Please comment on some of the wide CIs e.g., age 44-491.82, 5.36

Discussion

The study found that 28.8% of participants had experienced physical IPV. In the introduction, the authors noted that previous studies reported an average of 35%. It is important to comment on this disparity. Could it be different data sets or time frames- What does this reduction mean?

A significant finding from the study is the observed geographical variation. What explanations could account for this variation, and what implications does it carry?

**********

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.

Spatial distribution and determinants of Physical Intimate Partner Violence among women in Kenya: Evidence from the 2022 Kenya Demographic and Health Survey

PONE-D-24-02046R1

Dear Dr. Ayebeng,

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,

Adobea Yaa Owusu, MA, PhD, MPH

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: 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: Congratulations to the authors. My concerns about spatial variations have been addressed. The work is now publishable as authors are entitled to their opinions and argument.

However, it is a bad science to state that IPV justification increases the likelihood of IPV experience because earlier studies said so. What are you adding to science? A mere regurgitation of earlier works? The fact that previous studies have made such assumptions does not make it right. The earth was once said to be flat; new evidence emerged, and it now said to be spherical.There is new evidence that the association between the two variables is bi-directional.

The authors responded that "Thus, over time women who justify IPV may develop tolerant attitudes toward IPV violence against

women and consider the violence as normal in their life process." In other vein, I argue that, as women continue to experience IPV, they gradually justify it, just as those who use drugs will justify its use. It's a simple logic.

Since you have made up your mind, you need not rerun your analysis. However, for the sake of knowledge, test for the association between the two variables using justification of IPV as dependent variable and actual experience as independent and see what the outcome says. You do not need to include the results in the manuscript. Just check and see so that you are more informed than the earlier studies you mentioned.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed the comments made in the first review (or provided justifications -in some cases- for not addressing others).

My only comment which i feel needs to be addressed is that while the strength or scientific contribution of the study lies in the method (geo-spatial analysis)- the method is not sufficiently justified. The text provided lacks specificity and does not clearly show the link between geo-spatial analysis and IPV.

**********

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

**********