Gender-Related Violence in Young People’s Lives: UK Practitioners’ Concerns and Planned Interventions

Reviewer 1

“The manuscript is dedicated to the important issue of youth well-being and might be interesting for the scholars working in the field of gender-related violence with young people, however several improvements might help readers to understand the ideas presented in the paper more clearly. First of all, no information concerning the SAMPLE is provided in the abstract.”

Thank you for your feedback and suggestions. Information has been added to the abstract about the data set.

Further detail has also been added to the main text too (p7).

“Secondly, The UK Training part of the manuscript could be presented more clearly: (1) the theoretical background of the training should be presented more thoroughly; (2) the WORKSHOPS AGENDA (including aims, activities, duration, etc.) of all days of the training could be presented in a table format as it would help to understand more clearly the logic and the content of the training.”

The theoretical background has been given a little more depth now, and the detail of the training and agenda each day is now presented in a table to show its overall logic and contents.

Lastly, information in the FIGURE 1 is not fully visible for the readers (the names of the bars are cut down in the chart, e.g. sexting).

I have re-made a table from the data and improved the labels and called it Table 2 now.

1. “Can the authors tell us more about THE PHD STUDY on which this article is based? Or is it that the methodology of the study is in line with the PhD study”

Many thanks for your three recommendations for improvement. We have now clarified what is drawn from the project and what is from the PhD by the addition of a point at the end of section 1 (p2). (The PhD is contributing only the follow-up interviews with professionals).

2. “How different is this study in the UK compared to other country contexts?”

If you mean between the other partners in our study, this is already reported elsewhere and we hope to be able to add in the citation once this paper moves beyond being anonymised. The big caveat though is that the professional roles don’t map over fully and so, whereas we felt we could compare teachers, youth workers are not the same as social pedagogues or social workers or probation officers etc. We cannot therefore make a direct comparison.

3. “Can the authors suffuse some of the theorisations in the findings? I find this lack of integration glaring”

We have checked that theory is used in the Conclusion (which it is) and don’t think it’s appropriate to add theory to the findings section, since it reports the findings and is in any case is already long. We think the theorisation is now adequate and hope that you now find it so.