Dear Dr. Alade,

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 May 24 2025 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.

• 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,

Obasanjo Bolarinwa, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

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

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

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

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

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

[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?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Authors conducted a LCA of IPV help-seeking (HS) in Nigeria. The paper has great merit, particularly in areas where little is known about available resources and support. While this paper is of great importance, it could be further strengthened by providing readers of a conceptualization of the terms, a synthesis if extant literature, identifying gaps in knowledge, better organizing the justification for this scholarship. It’s my understanding that the terms “domestic violence” is used in Nigeria rather than “intimate partner violence.” Since this is the case, I am curious how come authors did not use the terminology that is used in that country? Since authors fail to provide enough background information about IPV and underpinning dynamics for readers to contextualize the findings. Authors may also refer to the publication for organization as it is currently amiss of what is typical for academic journals. Importantly, authors discuss the 4-class model; however, the best model is actually the 5-class model, based on the BIC and entropy.

Reviewer #2: The study provides relevant and timely insights into the underlying drivers of IPV. The authors provided an extensive review of existing evidence and statistically modelled the level of class membership with multiple models which further enriched the research. The goal of these types of studies is to translate research to practice by using evidence to inform policy, strategies and initiative to reduce IPV risks and improve intervention outcomes. It would be great for the authors to consider aligning the LCA with existing models such as the Socioecological model which attempts to align critical determinants at different levels of engagement. Other alrnative models could be considered.

Furthermore, the use of "he;p' was applies loosely and insome cases interchangeably with 'reporting IPV'. There is need to unpack the meaning of 'help' - is it only talking about IPV to someone or does it go beyond this to include counselling counselling, protective & legal support, social protection, healthcare services, etc.

There is need to also explore the reason why IPV help is not sought (perhaps this is beyond the scope of this literature). But will be helpful in closing the loop.

Reviewer #3: The scientific rationale for the study was explained explicitly. The methodological gap and objective of the study was clearly stated. The design, setting, variable for the study, size and sampling techniques were outlined. Kindly state any efforts to mitigate bias.

The result and discussion were summarised. Kindly state the limitation of the study in a sub-heading of it own. State the conclusion as a sub-heading of it own and ensure it is comprehensive. State the implication of the study as a sub-heading

Summary of recommendation

1. State efforts to mitigate bias

2. State the limitation of the study

3. State the policy implications of the result findings

4. State the conclusion of the study

**********

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: Yes:  Imuwahen Victor Igharo

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Chukwudeh Stephen Okechukwu

**********

[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-24-53009_Review.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-53009_reviewer.pdf

Help seeking for intimate partner violence in a resource-constrained setting: A latent class analysis of the Nigerian demographic health survey dataset

PONE-D-24-53009R1

Dear Dr. Alade,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Obasanjo Bolarinwa, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: