Review Reports - Vulnerabilities and Inequities: Challenges Experienced by Professionals Engaged with Migrant and Refugee Survivors of Gender-Based Violence in Canada

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this very well written and presented study.

This will add great value to the Canadian context of SSI in working with recent migration and refugees and could make a wider contribution with a few small changes.

Abstract

This is well written and clear.

Introduction

Overall, this is also well written, with a clear narrative to justify the study.

Could you please include a research question.

Page 2, line 44-51 You could add some references to this paragraph.

Methodology

Page 5, line 218-227 While it is clear you used a qualitative methodology your approach to analysis could be improved, you describe coding the data but there are no references. Did you use Braun & Clarke, if so exactly HOW did you apply this approach and why are there two citations in your reference list but not in the methods?

The final section on page 224-228 is also confusing, I can understand if the analysis was part of a larger study, and a separate RQ but this needs to be explained. It would also be helpful to know what your research question was for the study.

Results & Discussion

The combination of results & discussion is well written and presented.

The focus on the policy context, and other government is very interesting but as an international reader I am wondering how this might be relevant in other jurisdictions.

Conclusion

The conclusion is well written.

HIGHLY RELEVANT REFERENCES TO INCREASE INTERNATIONAL SCOPE:

Clarke, S., Toole-Anstey, C., Cameron, J., Spence, N., & Spangaro, J. (2024). A Rapid Evidence Review of Interventions to Identify, Prevent, and Address Intimate Partner Violence Experienced by Refugee Women in Post-Settlement Settings. Violence and Gender, 11(4), 167-176. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2023.0068

Cameron, J., Spence, N., Spangaro, J., Toole-Anstey, C., Hegarty, K., Koziol-McLain, J., Zwi, A., Walsh, J., McMahon, T., & Perry-Indermaur, A. (2025). “Waiting for someone to ask”: Successful implementation of an IPV response by bicultural settlement staff with refugee women in Australia Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2025.2544173

POSSIBLE REFERENCES TO INCREASE INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION:

Segrave, M., Wickes, R., & Keel, C. (2021). Domestic and Family Violence and the Safety and Security of Migrant and Refugee Women Research brief. https://au-east.erc.monash.edu.au/fpfiles/28478451/TechnicalReport_MigrantandRefugeeWomeninAustraliaSafetySecurityStudy_June2021.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=e00145a6f706457aab45051570081e49&Expires=1632210174&Signature=9oau37dRzIr%2BEK%2FpWiMlfTCMCgM%3D

Segrave, M., Vasil, S., Reeves, E., Stewart, E., & Tan, S. (2023). Domestic and family violence, coercive control and exploring ideas and practices of prevention for migrants and refugees in Victoria. https://bridges.monash.edu/articles/report/Domestic_and_family_violence_coercive_control_and_exploring_ideas_and_practices_of_prevention_for_migrants_and_refugees_in_Victoria/24657348?file=43651662

Spangaro, J., Spence, N., Hegarty, K., Koziol-McLain, J., Walsh, J., Cameron, J., McMahon, T., Man, N., C., T.-A., Zwi, A., & Perry, A. (2024). Refugee women in settlement services and screening for coercive control. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 80(2), 9–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.16568

Spangaro, J., Walsh, J., Spence, N., Man, N., Hegarty, K., Koziol-McLain, J., Cameron, J., Toole-Anstey, C., Zwi, A., McMahon, T., & Perry, A. (2024). Identifying and Responding to Intimate Partner Violence in Australian Refugee Settlement Services. Journal of

Author Response

"Could you please include a research question." Research questions have been added to the manuscript.

"Page 2, line 44-51 You could add some references to this paragraph." This paragraph describes the findings of the analysis and we didn't feel it was appropriate to add references to this description.

"Page 5, line 218-227 While it is clear you used a qualitative methodology your approach to analysis could be improved, you describe coding the data but there are no references. Did you use Braun & Clarke, if so exactly HOW did you apply this approach and why are there two citations in your reference list but not in the methods?" The description of reflexive thematic analysis has been elaborated and Braun & Clarke (2021; 2019; 2006) have been cited and included in the reference list.

"The final section on page 224-228 is also confusing, I can understand if the analysis was part of a larger study, and a separate RQ but this needs to be explained. It would also be helpful to know what your research question was for the study." The themes for the overall study were identified, the theme used for the analysis in this article was described, and related to the research questions.

"Highly relevant references to increase the international scope" Clarke et al. 2024, Cameron et al. 2025, and Segrave et al. 2023 were cited and referenced in the article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors on this valuable and interesting research. This study offers important insights into the realities experienced by migrant and refugee women within social services in Canada from a gendered and intersectional perspective. The testimonies of 43 professionals are truly useful for identifying the difficulties faced by these women and for promoting improvements in the care provided to a discriminated and vulnerable population. Nevertheless, I believe that the manuscript could benefit from some changes prior to publication.

Abstract:

I believe this abstract is very clear, but it should specify the type of qualitative design and analysis used in the study.
Line 22: I think expressions such as “we make” should be avoided. It is more appropriate to use a general and impersonal tone, such as: “Through this study, a contribution is made…”. In short, references to “we” or “our study” should be avoided in favor of “this study,” “the results of this study,” or “this article.” Please review this throughout the manuscript.
Line 23: the authors have clarified that they will use the terms “migrant and refugee.” However, in this line the term “immigrant” is used. Please change the term and ensure consistency throughout the manuscript.

Introduction:

I believe the introduction would benefit from a clear definition of “GBV” at the beginning, in order to clarify that the authors are referring to different types of violence to which women are exposed, such as sexual violence, intimate partner violence, sexual exploitation, etc. It may be useful to mention specific forms of violence faced by migrant and refugee women along the migration pathway. This could be done in the first three lines, providing concrete examples of violence experienced before, during, and after the migration journey.
I am not sure that paragraphs 2 and 3 of the introduction are appropriate in this section of the article. Both paragraphs anticipate study results, which I believe is not appropriate. Paragraph 2 might be better placed at the end of the introduction (before the Methods and Materials section), where the specific objectives of the study and the hypotheses could be clearly stated. Likewise, paragraph 3 does not include any citations and seems more like a study result or an interpretation of results. Therefore, a possible coherent structure for the first part of the introduction (before section 1.1) could be:

definition of GBV and types of violence faced by women along the migration pathway (information currently presented in lines 112–115 could be moved here);
prevalence of migration/refugee status and GBV in Canada;
importance of an intersectional-structural perspective for addressing the care and help-seeking processes of these women in Canadian services due to their particular vulnerability.

In the second paragraph of section 1.1 (first three lines), part of the study objective is mentioned. Again, I believe this should be placed at the end of the introduction. Moreover, the rest of the paragraph seems more appropriate for the first part of the introduction, as it discusses the vulnerability of migrant women (which helps contextualize the problem) rather than the role of services.
I do not understand the last paragraph of section 1.1, which focuses exclusively on D/IPV. Does this mean that the article will focus on this specific form of violence? Or will it address GBV more broadly? In section 2 (Materials and Methods), domestic violence is mentioned (line 199), while in line 243 family violence is referenced. This is somewhat confusing. I believe it is important, from the beginning of the manuscript, to clearly specify which type of violence is being analyzed, define it appropriately, and use consistent terminology throughout the article (for example, in some countries, due to legislative frameworks, IPV and DV are not the same).
I recommend revising the introduction to ensure coherence and a logical order in the presentation of topics.

Materials and Methods:

I believe this section is very brief and would benefit from subheadings and greater detail. For example: 1) study design and measures, 2) participants and data collection (or procedure), and 3) data analysis. This is only a suggestion, and the authors may organize it as they better consider.
Some details that I believe are missing or could be clarified include:

How were professionals recruited? Via email? Phone? Was a general email sent and professionals contacted the researchers afterward? Was this a convenience sample? Please specify the sampling method and the concrete inclusion and/or exclusion criteria.
In the final manuscript, it would be relevant to indicate the specific region of Canada where the study was conducted.
How many individuals were initially recruited, and how many ultimately participated/met inclusion criteria? Please indicate the initial number, reasons for inclusion or exclusion, and the final sample size.
Lines 200 and 201 specify the types of professionals interviewed (professions or areas of work). This information is repeated in the second paragraph of this section when the number of professionals per area is detailed, which feels somewhat repetitive.
Line 203 indicates that an online software was used. Which software?
Who conducted the interviews? One person or several? Were they trained to conduct this type of interview?
Line 220: what is a reflexive thematic analysis? It might be useful for a non-professional reader to know a little more about this type of analysis.
What do the authors mean by “macro and micro systemic challenges” (line 222)? Please clarify.
What was the specific procedure used to code the interviews? Were codes pre-established based on interview questions, or did they emerge during the coding process? How many themes and subthemes emerged from the complete analysis? Which themes and subthemes are presented in this study, and why were these selected? Although this is briefly described in paragraph 3 of this section, it should be detailed enough to allow replication of the study.
Did only one person transcribe and code the interviews? Was there no triangulation process? That is, did a second researcher review and code the interviews and reach agreement on final themes and subthemes?
It might be useful to include a table or appendix related to this section showing the specific themes or interview questions, to better understand the interview content. This is only a suggestion.

Results and Discussion:

I believe that the Results and Discussion sections should be separated (and I believe the journal itself requires this separation, if I am not mistaken). Results should be limited to describing the findings, while the Discussion should encourage critical reflection and link the findings to previous research.

Some issues to highlight in this section:

Again, it is not clear whether the focus is on violence against women in general or on gender-based violence within intimate partnerships.
I believe it would be very relevant to include a separate Discussion section that provides a more critical and comprehensive analysis of the results, along with a discussion of the study’s limitations and strengths (and mention relevant criteria of validity and reliability in qualitative methodology). This last aspect is not addressed at any point. Additionally, it would be relevant to suggest possible future research directions, such as collecting testimonies from the women themselves in order to compare results (this is an example).

APA FORMAT:

I believe some details related to APA format should be reviewed throughout the article:

When multiple citations are included, they should also be listed in alphabetical order (e.g., line 36).
Replace “and” with “&” in all parenthetical citations.
Line 84: the year should follow the author’s name, i.e., Butler (2009).
The first time an abbreviation is used, the full term should be written out. For example, line 126: “D/IPV.” Please clarify that this refers to “domestic or intimate partner violence” (I assume…).
Some minor errors were detected in the reference list: some DOIs are missing, some are incorrectly written, or appear in different formats. Please review the references to ensure a consistent format.

I hope these revisions are helpful and constructive for the authors. Authors should consider the changes if they truly fit with their vision for the manuscript. I appreciate the opportunity to conduct this review. Best wishes.

Author Response

"I believe this abstract is very clear, but it should specify the type of qualitative design and analysis used in the study." The abstract now specifies the type of qualitative design and analysis used in the study.

"Line 23: the authors have clarified that they will use the terms “migrant and refugee.” However, in this line the term “immigrant” is used. Please change the term and ensure consistency throughout the manuscript." The term "immigrant" in Line 23 has been changed to migrant and consistency in the migrant and refugee women (MRW) has been checked throughout the article.

"I believe the introduction would benefit from a clear definition of “GBV” at the beginning, in order to clarify that the authors are referring to different types of violence to which women are exposed, such as sexual violence, intimate partner violence, sexual exploitation, etc. It may be useful to mention specific forms of violence faced by migrant and refugee women along the migration pathway. This could be done in the first three lines, providing concrete examples of violence experienced before, during, and after the migration journey." A definition of GBV has been added to the introduction and the prevalence of GBV reported by MRW women in Canada is described according to the latest statistics available. The different forms of violence experienced along the migration pathway are mentioned and supported with references to the literature.

"I do not understand the last paragraph of section 1.1, which focuses exclusively on D/IPV. Does this mean that the article will focus on this specific form of violence? Or will it address GBV more broadly? In section 2 (Materials and Methods), domestic violence is mentioned (line 199), while in line 243 family violence is referenced. This is somewhat confusing. I believe it is important, from the beginning of the manuscript, to clearly specify which type of violence is being analyzed, define it appropriately, and use consistent terminology throughout the article (for example, in some countries, due to legislative frameworks, IPV and DV are not the same)." In the manuscript we mention that most of the research with MRW in Canada has focused on domestic and intimate partner violence (D/IPV) and therefore the literature review uses this phrase when D/IPV is the focus of the study. However, we have checked the manuscript for consistency when we are referring to GBV.

"I recommend revising the introduction to ensure coherence and a logical order in the presentation of topics." The Introduction has been revised as described above and under the guidance of the editor.

"Some details that I believe are missing or could be clarified [in the Materials and Methods section] include:

- How were professionals recruited? Via email? Phone? Was a general email sent and professionals contacted the researchers afterward? Was this a convenience sample? Please specify the sampling method and the concrete inclusion and/or exclusion criteria.
- In the final manuscript, it would be relevant to indicate the specific region of Canada where the study was conducted.
- How many individuals were initially recruited, and how many ultimately participated/met inclusion criteria? Please indicate the initial number, reasons for inclusion or exclusion, and the final sample size.
- Lines 200 and 201 specify the types of professionals interviewed (professions or areas of work). This information is repeated in the second paragraph of this section when the number of professionals per area is detailed, which feels somewhat repetitive.
- Line 203 indicates that an online software was used. Which software?
- Who conducted the interviews? One person or several? Were they trained to conduct this type of interview?
- Line 220: what is a reflexive thematic analysis? It might be useful for a non-professional reader to know a little more about this type of analysis.
- What do the authors mean by “macro and micro systemic challenges” (line 222)? Please clarify.
- What was the specific procedure used to code the interviews? Were codes pre-established based on interview questions, or did they emerge during the coding process? How many themes and subthemes emerged from the complete analysis? Which themes and subthemes are presented in this study, and why were these selected? Although this is briefly described in paragraph 3 of this section, it should be detailed enough to allow replication of the study.
- Did only one person transcribe and code the interviews? Was there no triangulation process? That is, did a second researcher review and code the interviews and reach agreement on final themes and subthemes?"

We have answered the reviewers questions by providing detailed information in the Materials and Methods section of the revised manuscript.

"It might be useful to include a table or appendix related to this section showing the specific themes or interview questions, to better understand the interview content. This is only a suggestion." We feel that the additional information in the Methods and Materials section is sufficient and decided not add a table or appendix as suggested.

"I believe that the Results and Discussion sections should be separated (and I believe the journal itself requires this separation, if I am not mistaken). Results should be limited to describing the findings, while the Discussion should encourage critical reflection and link the findings to previous research.

Some issues to highlight in this section:

Again, it is not clear whether the focus is on violence against women in general or on gender-based violence within intimate partnerships.
I believe it would be very relevant to include a separate Discussion section that provides a more critical and comprehensive analysis of the results, along with a discussion of the study’s limitations and strengths (and mention relevant criteria of validity and reliability in qualitative methodology). This last aspect is not addressed at any point. Additionally, it would be relevant to suggest possible future research directions, such as collecting testimonies from the women themselves in order to compare results (this is an example)."

Given the editor's guidance, we did not separate the existing discussions from the Results section. However we did add a Discussion section which provides a more critical and comprehensive analysis of the results. We address the study's limitations in the Conclusion.

"I believe some details related to APA format should be reviewed throughout the article:

When multiple citations are included, they should also be listed in alphabetical order (e.g., line 36).
Replace “and” with “&” in all parenthetical citations.
Line 84: the year should follow the author’s name, i.e., Butler (2009).
The first time an abbreviation is used, the full term should be written out. For example, line 126: “D/IPV.” Please clarify that this refers to “domestic or intimate partner violence” (I assume…).
Some minor errors were detected in the reference list: some DOIs are missing, some are incorrectly written, or appear in different formats. Please review the references to ensure a consistent format."

The journal's guidelines for authors indicate the use of Chicago Style. The in-text citations throughout and the reference list have been revised to conform to this. DOIs were added when available.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed most of the comments, and the changes are in line with what was requested. However, I still disagree with some aspects that I believe could be improved after reviewing the additional information the authors have included.

The term “immigrant” is still used in several parts of the article. I understand that in some sections it cannot be changed, as the literature review also includes data on immigrant populations. However, in the keywords or objectives, it should be reconsidered whether the more appropriate term would be “migrant/refugee.” In this same line, if the authors consider it relevant, a better definition of the differences between immigrant, migrant, and refugee as used in the article could help clarify these concepts for the reader.
Line 41: I would clarify that migrant women experience more violence than native-born women (if supported by data in Canada), but that they seek help or report it less frequently. As it is currently written, it suggests that they may also experience less violence or are not vulnerable. I believe some data should be provided on the prevalence of GBV in Canada (native vs. migrant/refugee populations), as well as prevalence (if available) of formal help-seeking (native vs. migrant/refugee), to better contextualize the importance of this phenomenon.
Hypotheses are not mentioned.

Method

As I mentioned in my previous comments, it would be useful to indicate how many professionals responded to the emails, how many were included in the study, and how many were ultimately interviewed. Were the 43 individuals both those who responded and those included? Was the only inclusion criterion being a professional in these services? Was language not an inclusion criterion? What about years of experience or field of specialization? I believe this needs to be clarified.
Lines 239 and 241: the two sentences are repetitive.
The subthemes described in the Methods do not match those presented in the Results. Why was this different organization chosen?

Results and Discussion

The authors state that the results section follows the journal’s guidelines and that the discussion is included within it. However, in response to my comment, they have added a separate discussion section. I believe this new section does not function as a proper discussion. It does not reflect on the findings in relation to previous literature, nor does it justify claims with in-text citations. It reads more like a conclusion (and repeats points already made in the conclusion). Please revise this. If the journal does not require separating results and discussion, it would be better to integrate them appropriately and ensure overall coherence.
When using the term “domestic violence,” the abbreviation “DV” should be used.

Conclusions

I believe one limitation is that only one person coded the interviews. This may introduce interpretive bias. In qualitative research, triangulation through analysis by multiple researchers is important to ensure data quality. This should be acknowledged as a limitation.
Another possible limitation is the very broad conceptualization of GBV. It would be advisable to conduct more specific analyses to identify barriers and needs among victims of different types of violence. Intimate partner violence is not the same as sexual exploitation. This distinction should be considered, possibly in future research.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

Comment 1: The term “immigrant” is still used in several parts of the article. I understand that in some sections it cannot be changed, as the literature review also includes data on immigrant populations. However, in the keywords or objectives, it should be reconsidered whether the more appropriate term would be “migrant/refugee.” In this same line, if the authors consider it relevant, a better definition of the differences between immigrant, migrant, and refugee as used in the article could help clarify these concepts for the reader.

Response 1: We changed the keywords to “migrant and refugee women” and added “domestic and intimate partner violence”. We clarified the differences between Canadian immigrant and refugee categories in the first endnote.

Comment 2: I would clarify that migrant women experience more violence than native-born women (if supported by data in Canada), but that they seek help or report it less frequently. As it is currently written, it suggests that they may also experience less violence or are not vulnerable. I believe some data should be provided on the prevalence of GBV in Canada (native vs. migrant/refugee populations), as well as prevalence (if available) of formal help-seeking (native vs. migrant/refugee), to better contextualize the importance of this phenomenon.

Response 2: Statistics on the prevalence of GBV victimization and help-seeking for immigrant and non-immigrants in Canada are included. The lack of data on differences in help-seeking between immigrant and non-immigrant women is explained in an endnote.

Comment 3: Hypotheses are not mentioned.

Response 3: Hypotheses are not normally required in qualitative research and we did not include any.

Comment 4: As I mentioned in my previous comments, it would be useful to indicate how many professionals responded to the emails, how many were included in the study, and how many were ultimately interviewed. Were the 43 individuals both those who responded and those included? Was the only inclusion criterion being a professional in these services? Was language not an inclusion criterion? What about years of experience or field of specialization? I believe this needs to be clarified.

Response 4: We do not have a record of how many emails were sent to professionals, how many people responded to those emails, or how many of those who responded to the emails participated in the study. Inclusion criteria were added to the methods section. The research was conducted in French and English; however, we had interpreters available upon request and therefore language was not an inclusion criterion. Years of experience was not an inclusion criterion.

Comment 5: Lines 239 and 241: the two sentences are repetitive.

Response 5: The sentences may repeat terms like women’s issues and immigration but describe different groups of KIs. KIs working in government departments have different perspectives on women’s issues and immigration than those working in non-governmental organizations. Legal services for refugees are different from health care clinics for refugees.

Comment 6: The subthemes described in the Methods do not match those presented in the Results. Why was this different organization chosen?

Response 6: We provided some clarification in the description of the subthemes in the methods section. The subthemes of “challenges and vulnerabilities of work” and “challenges and vulnerabilities of individuals” were initially coded by the former postdoctoral research (and co-author) but our research questions focused the secondary analysis of the subthemes on the vulnerabilities of the organizations within Canadian social systems and the consequences of systemic marginalization for workers in the organizations.

Comment 7: The authors state that the results section follows the journal’s guidelines and that the discussion is included within it. However, in response to my comment, they have added a separate discussion section. I believe this new section does not function as a proper discussion. It does not reflect on the findings in relation to previous literature, nor does it justify claims with in-text citations. It reads more like a conclusion (and repeats points already made in the conclusion). Please revise this. If the journal does not require separating results and discussion, it would be better to integrate them appropriately and ensure overall coherence.

Response 7: The separate Discussion section was incorporated into the Conclusion. The Results section was renamed to Results and Discussion. Literature was added to the discussion sections in the Results in the first and second rounds of revision.

Comment 8: I believe one limitation is that only one person coded the interviews. This may introduce interpretive bias. In qualitative research, triangulation through analysis by multiple researchers is important to ensure data quality. This should be acknowledged as a limitation.

Response 8: We do not agree with this perspective on the coding of the interview data. The former postdoctoral researcher (and co-author) did the initial coding of the KI data alone. To answer the research questions for this paper two of the co-authors used data from two subthemes of the initial coding. This secondary analysis resulted in the identification of the three themes for this paper. All co-authors were involved in and agreed on the analysis.

Comment 9: Another possible limitation is the very broad conceptualization of GBV. It would be advisable to conduct more specific analyses to identify barriers and needs among victims of different types of violence. Intimate partner violence is not the same as sexual exploitation. This distinction should be considered, possibly in future research.

Response 9: This limitation was added to the Conclusion.