‘It’s Not a Subject You Can Sugar-Coat’—An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Service Providers’ Experiences of Delivering a Domestic Abuse Awareness Intervention

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents the outcomes of  the semi-structured interviews among the staff facilitating the CEASE Educational Programme provided by the charitable organization RemediUK. A limitation of the research is that only 6 participants took part in the interviews. The advantage of the article is the use of new literature on the subject and reference to the latest legal acts on domestic violence adopted in the United Kingdom. All six participants are young people, aged 20–25, and thus likely have little life experience. This, in turn, may influence their perception of domestic violence and may also influence how teachers in schools perceive them (this issue is addressed in the article). This factor deserves further commentary in the article. The section titled "Limitations" (pp. 9–10) is very cursory and should be expanded.

Author Response

All six participants are young people, aged 20–25, and thus likely have little life experience. This, in turn, may influence their perception of domestic violence and may also influence how teachers in schools perceive them (this issue is addressed in the article). This factor deserves further commentary in the article.

Response to reviewer: Thank you for your comment. This is an interesting point and has been included within section 5 limitations (p.10).

The section titled "Limitations" (pp. 9–10) is very cursory and should be expanded.

Response to reviewer: Thank you for your comment. Based on comments from you and R2 the limitations section has been expanded slightly. Please see page 10, section 5 (Limitations).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a timely and important study that examines service providers’ perspectives on delivering a domestic abuse (DA) awareness program. The topic is highly relevant given recent legislative developments in the UK and ongoing public health concerns around DA. The manuscript is clearly written, theoretically informed, and offers valuable practitioner insights.

1. The discussion could be made more compelling by more strongly articulating the implications of facilitators’ barriers for policy, program design, and victim outcomes. Consider ending with a clear statement of how failure to address these barriers risks undermining recent legislative advances.
2. While ethical approval is noted, please elaborate on safeguards around voluntariness, confidentiality, and support for participants. Given the small, identifiable sample from one organization, more detail on how anonymity was preserved and acknowledging risk of coercion would reassure readers. 
3. When facilitators describe challenges (e.g., lack of engagement), extend discussion toward actionable recommendations: How might programs adapt curricula, recruitment, or facilitator training to address these issues?
4. Consider a clearer limitations section that emphasizes transferability concerns: small sample size, single organization, potential power dynamics with employer involvement.

Author Response

1. The discussion could be made more compelling by more strongly articulating the implications of facilitators’ barriers for policy, program design, and victim outcomes. Consider ending with a clear statement of how failure to address these barriers risks undermining recent legislative advances.

Response to reviewer: Thank you for your comment. A statement to this effect has been added in the conclusion paragraph, page 10, lines 474-479.

1. While ethical approval is noted, please elaborate on safeguards around voluntariness, confidentiality, and support for participants. Given the small, identifiable sample from one organization, more detail on how anonymity was preserved and acknowledging risk of coercion would reassure readers. 

Response to reviewer: Thank you for your comment. The data collection and procedure section (2.2.) has been amended to reflect these comments. See page 3, lines 109-116.

1. When facilitators describe challenges (e.g., lack of engagement), extend discussion toward actionable recommendations: How might programs adapt curricula, recruitment, or facilitator training to address these issues?

Response to Reviewer: Thank you for your comment. We agree this is an important part of the discussion, as such we have added an Implications section on page 9, lines 414-438.

1. Consider a clearer limitations section that emphasizes transferability concerns: small sample size, single organization, potential power dynamics with employer involvement.

Response to reviewer: Thank you for your feedback. We agree that further clarification on these limitations was warranted. Please see page 10, section 5 (Limitations) for changes made.