Prevalence of sexual violence and its associated factors among housemaids attending evening schools in urban settings of Gedeo zone, Southern Ethiopia: A school based cross sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Housemaids are the most vulnerable group to sexual violence due to their working condition, isolation and school arrangements. Despite the ubiquity of sexual violence among the domestic work sector, particularly among housemaids, this area of research continues to be neglected. This study was aimed at examining the prevalence and factors pertaining to sexual violence among housemaids attending night school program in urban setups of Gedeo zone, Southern Ethiopia.
METHOD: A school based quantitative cross sectional study was conducted among 394 housemaids attending night schools in the urban setups of Gedeo Zone from April to May 2019. After stratifying of students using class grade, SRS technique was used to choose study subjects from each stratum. Quantitative data was collected using face to face interview and qualitative was collected using focus group discussion, in-depth interview and key informant interview. The data was entered and analyzed by SPSS version 20. Binary logistic regression was fitted to determine the association of each independent variable with the dependent variable. RESULT: Based on the finding, the prevalence of sexual violence was 60.2%. The odds of experiencing sexual violence through working life-time as housemaid was higher for those who had migrated from rural to urban for work [AOR = 1.97: 95% CI, (1.07,3.63)], had less than 5 years of experience as housemaid [AOR = 3.10: 95% CI, (1.60, 6.00)], were in the age group of 15-19 [AOR = 3.75:95% CI (1.88, 7.46), ever used alcohol [AOR = 6.77: 95% CI, (2.65,17.33)] and whose fathers lacked formal education [AOR = 2.75:95%CI (1.24,6.08)]. On the other hand, unmarried /housemaids having no regular sexual partner were less likely to face sexual violence [AOR. = 0.28: 95% CI, (0.13, 0.57)].
CONCLUSION: The level of sexual violence was found to be high among housemaids attending night schools in in this study. Housemaids from rural area, those newly starting the work, younger housemaids, and those who were married were more likely to be victims of sexual violence.

Background

Sexual violence is defined as: ‘Any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act, unwanted sexual comments or advances, or acts to traffic or otherwise directed against a person’s sexuality using coercion, by any person regardless of their relationship to the victim, in any setting, including but not limited to home and work. It can take many forms including a threat of rape, attempted rape, complete rape, sexual harassment and sexual contact with force [1]. In any of the forms of sexual violence, minority and marginalized women are the most vulnerable, and generally those who face the greatest obstacles to gain protection and necessary services [2].

Domestic work is an occupation for millions of women worldwide. According to international labor organization (IOL) 2010 estimates, domestic workers represent 4–10% and 1–1.5% of the total workforce in developing and developed countries respectively [3]. In Ethiopia, there is a very high prevalence of seasonal and long-term rural-urban migration for domestic work. The main destinations of these migrants are majorly regional and zonal towns, which provide these migrants with domestic services as a housemaid [4]. Domestic work is one of the least protected sector under labor law and poor monitoring and implementation of the existing laws puts housemaids in a highly disadvantaged position that in turn exacerbates their vulnerability to sexual abuse and violence [5, 6].

According to evidences from different literatures, the sexual activity of housemaid women also differs from that of the general population. A population based study conducted in urban areas of Ethiopia revealed that, domestic workers were more likely to have had sex before age 15 and to have been coerced into having sex when compared to other young women [7].

Housemaids often comes across different types of sexual abuse ranging from verbal harassment to forced sex by male members of the household, brokers and friends [5, 7–9]. Survival becomes primary consideration for the victims because they often have few or no options for other work, and they also lack awareness and knowledge of their options since most come from poor families, are migrants from the rural areas, and have low level of education. As a result, they usually cannot report such offences so that these kinds of violence against house maids remain usually concealed [9-11].

Most housemaids do not get the opportunity to continue their education on a regular program. Consequently, they are obliged to attend the night shift, which increases their vulnerability to sexual abuse. Many of the studies related to youths conducted in the context of regular secondary schools and higher educational institutions with an emphasis on sexual violence, with very few studies carried out on the most vulnerable group in the evening program [12-14].

Despite the number of studies revealing the vulnerability of housemaids to sexual abuse and exploitation, there is a substantial lack of data on the magnitude of sexual violence among housemaids in Ethiopia.

Methods and materials

Study design and setting

A school based quantitative cross sectional study was conducted in urban settings of Gedeo zone, Southern Ethiopia, from April 1 to May 1, 2019. Gedeo Zone is located at 369 km to the South of Addis Ababa. This study was conducted in the two urban administrative (Dilla and Yirgachefie towns) in the district. The study was conducted in five schools (1 high school & four primary schools) in the two town administrative.

Population and sample size

Female housemaids aged 15 years and above and attending evening schools during the study period in the districts were included. Sample size was determined using single population proportion formula considering the following assumptions: prevalence of sexual violence among housemaids assumed to be 50% due to lack of comparable previous study, 95% certainty and maximum discrepancy of 5% between the sample size and the underlining population. The adopted sample size formula is:

Where:

n = sample size

P = prevalence of sexual violence among house maids = 50%

d = margin of error 5%

Zα/2 = critical value at 95% confidence level of certainty (1.96)

Accordingly, the calculated sample size, n = (1.96)2 x 0.5(1–0.5) / (0.05)2 = 384

Finally 10% of non-response rate was added making the total sample size of this study 422.

Sampling technique

Among the schools having evening program, five schools were randomly selected and census was conducted to identify students who were housemaids. To identify the housemaids, all students attending selected evening schools were asked to fill a form on the type of job they do. Different codes were assigned to different possible types of occupations along with their ages and class role number to identify eligible respondents. Then the total number of housemaid students in each of evening schools were identified with their respective class grades and the sample size was proportionally allocated to each class. In this regard, the distribution of total number of housemaid students in each class were:

45 students in grade 9 (no housemaid student was obtained with educational level above grade nine)

166 students in grade 7 and 8

122 students in grade 5 and 6

124 students in grade 3 and 4

150 students in grade 1 and 2

With proportional allocation to each size of the total students in each classes, the allotted number of students for each category was:

31 students in grade 9

116 students in grade 7 and 8

85 students in grade 5 and 6

86 students in grade 3 and 4

104 students in grade 1 and 2

Then simple random sampling technique was used to choose the proportionally allocated study participants from each class. For eligible participants who were absent at the day of data collection, data collectors were revisited the class room two times at different time intervals and for those who were absent after two revisits, the participant was replaced by another in the sampling frame.

Data collection procedure and data quality control

Data was collected with face to face interview by six data collectors using structured questionnaire. To reduce the possibility of bias and to make participants respond genuinely, specialized training was adequately provided for data collectors and interview was conducted at isolated place with adequate privacy. Confidentiality of the participants was highly protected. The instrument was adapted from previous published literatures and WHO multi-country study on women’s health [15-17] and it was modified depending on the local situation and the research objective. The tool contains socio demographic characteristics of respondents, family and employers characteristics, behavioral information and sexual history. The questionnaire was prepared in English, and translated to Amharic to use in the field. The tool was also pre-tested before the actual use in the field. Pre-test was done using 10 house maids attending night schools in Wonago town which is the nearby district to the actual data collection site, with comparable socio-demographic and socio-economic characteristics.

Data collection process was supervised by the investigators and employed supervisors for this purpose. Training was given for data collectors and supervisors to orient them on the objectives and ethical conduct of the study, the nature of the study, the sensitiveness of the issue and how to minimize any bias during interview.

Measurement

Sexual violence experience for each housemaid was defined if a housemaid faces one or more of the following: rape, attempted rape, coerced sex, any sexual harassment at list once in her life-time course as housemaid.

Sexual harassment

When the participant experienced one of the following: unwanted and repeated sexual advances that range from unwelcome comments and improper or offensive verbal jokes, kissing and touching her sensitive body parts.

Problematic substance use or involvement was measured using ASSIST tool. From the measurement, a score of greater than 5 was used for alcoholic beverages (like areke, tela, beer, etc.) and for any other type of substance (shisha, chat, etc.) a score of greater than 2 was considered as problematic substance use or involvement [18].

Data processing and analysis

The quantitative data was checked, coded and entered to Epi-Data version 3.1 and was exported to SPSS (Statistical Package for Social science) version 20 for analysis. In descriptive statistics tables, graphs, mean and frequency was used to present the finding. Binary logistic regression was fitted to identify factors associated with sexual violence. The strength of statistical association between dependent and independent variables was measured at p-value<0.05 by adjusted odds ratio with their corresponding 95% confidence interval.

Ethical consideration

Ethical clearance was obtained from Institutional Review Board of Dilla University, College of Health Science and Medicine. Written informed consent was obtained from each respondent after detailed explanation of the nature and procedure of the study. Written consent was obtained from the non-minor respondents before conduction of the study. For minors, the assent was obtained from their parents/guardian for those whom their parents/guardian were accessible. But for some minors whom their parents/guardians were not accessible due to different reasons, the IRB was clearly informed about the problem and their assent was waived. The information given by each respondent was kept with strict confidentiality and name was not recorded.

Result

Socio-demographic characteristics of the housemaids

Out of the 422 housemaids that were expected to participate in this study, a total of 394 were interviewed allowing a response rate of 93.4%. It was noted that, the mean age of the study participants was 18 years (SD ±2.5) with the minimum age being 15 years and maximum age being 24 years. Among these, 279 participants (70.8%) were adolescents (aged 15–19 years), whereas 115 (29.2%) were young adults (aged 20–24 years). A majority of the study’s participants 316 (80.2%) were neither married nor had a boyfriend. Regarding their educational status, it was found that 264 (67%) participants, i.e. large number of them, were educated only up to the 6th grade or below. In all 277 (70.3%), of the respondents earned between 100–500 birr as monthly salary and an almost equal number of them, i.e., 294 (74.6%) had no family support. As for the family characteristics of the participants, the parents of 135 (34.3%) of them were either divorced or one of the parent had passed away. Educationally, 159 (53.4%) of the respondents’ fathers and 251 (63.7%) of the respondents’ mothers had no formal education. Out of the total participants, 346 (87.8%) were from families with low income (Table 1).

Table 1

Socio demographic and family characteristic of housemaids attending night schools in urban settings of Gedeo zone southern Ethiopia, May 2019.

Variable	Frequency	Percent
Age category	394	100
15–19	279	70.8
20–24	115	29.2
Mean	18± 2.5
Religion of the respondent	394	100
Orthodox	118	29.9
Protestant	257	65.2
Muslim	12	3.2
Catholic	7	1.8
Marital status of the respondents	394	100
Never married	308	78.1
Regular boyfriend	60	15.22
Married	18	4.5
Divorced/ Widowed	8	2.02
Monthly salary	394	100
≤100	57	14.5
>100–500	277	70.3
>500	60	15.2
Educational level	394	100
First cycle (grade 1–4)	182	46.2
Second cycle (grade 5–8)	188	47.7
High school (grade 9)	24	6.1
Child hood residence	394	100
Rural	288	73.1
Urban	106	26.9
Father educational status	298	100
No formal education	159	53.4
Primary education	98	32.9
Secondary education and above	41	13.8
Mother educational status	332	100
No formal education	251	75.6
Primary education	61	18.4
Secondary education and above	20	6.0
Family income	394	100
Medium	48	12.2
Poor	346	87.8
Family support	394	100
Yes	100	25.4
No	294	74.6

Employment and employer characteristics of the housemaid

A majority of the housemaids, 332 (84.3%), were live-in domestic workers and the remaining 62 (15.7%) of them were live-out workers. The respondents were asked about their residence before coming to the present place of residence. About 288 (73.1%) of them were from rural areas. Regarding their work experience as housemaids, 286 (72.6%) had worked for more than five years and the mean duration of their work experience was four years with a minimum of one year and a maximum of ten years.

Some information about their employers was also asked of the housemaids who participated in this study. Among the employers, almost all of them were married and 232 (58.9%) had attended higher education (Table 2).

Table 2

Employment and employer characteristics of housemaids attending evening schools in urban settings of Gedeo zone Southern Ethiopia, May 2019.

Variable	Frequency	Percent
Agreement type	394	100
Live-in	332	84.3
Live-out	62	15.7
Duration of residence in the town	394	100
Five years and below	217	55.1
Above five years	177	44.9
Experience as a housemaid	394	100
Five years and below	286	72.6
Above five years	108	27.4
Employer marital status	394	100
Married	372	94.4
Single	22	5.6
Occupation of employer	394	100
Merchant	100	25.4
Government employee	245	62.2
Private	47	11.9
Other	2	0.5
Family size of the employer	394	100
Less than three	30	7.6
Three to five	166	42.1
Greater than five	198	50.3

Sexual history and behavioral characteristics

Among the total study participants, 103 individuals (26.1%) had a life time history of sexual intercourse, and of those individuals, 55 (53.4%) were sexually active during the past 12 months. The mean age at first sexual intercourse was 17, and for the largest number of the sexually actives, the reason for initiation of sexual activity was forced sex (39 individuals, 37.9%), followed by personal desire (24 individuals, 23.3%). On the other hand, 53 (13.6%) had ever used alcohol (Table 3).

Table 3

Sexual history of housemaids attending night schools in urban settings of Gedeo zone southern Ethiopia, May 2019.

Variable	Frequency	Percent
Sexual debut	394	100
Yes	103	26.1
No	291	73.9
Age at first sex in years	103	100
10–14	12	11.7
15–19	79	76.7
≥20	12	11.7
Reason for first sex	103	100
Forced	39	37.9
Desire	24	23.3
Marriage	18	17.5
Peer pressure	15	14.6
For money or promising word	7	6.8
Life time regular sexual partner	394	100
None	336	85.3
One	39	9.9
Two and above	19	4.8
Sex in the last 12 months	394	100
Yes	55	14
No	339	86

Life-time substance use and current (within the past 3 months) substance use were assessed using the ASSIST tool. Based on the scoring of the tool, none of the participants fulfilled the criteria to be classified as substance users. The study showed that, 53 (13.3%) of the study participants had ever used alcohol in their life-time, and of that group 45 consumed alcohol once or twice in the past 3 months. Only 8 students (2.0%) had ever chewed chat, and only 2 students (0.5%) had ever smoked shisha. None of the respondents had ever smoked a cigarette.

Prevalence of sexual violence among housemaids

The prevalence of life time sexual violence among the housemaids in this study was 237 (60.2%). The most prevalent type of sexual violence was sexual harassment, reported by 230 (58.4%) of the respondents. The prevalence of completed rape and attempted rape in life-time were 44 (11.2%) and 75 (19%) respectively (Fig 1). Regarding the perpetuators of the violence, 75 instances (31.6%) were performed by a person unknown by the victim and 54 (22.8%) were perpetrated by the broker or other intermediary person (Table 4).

Fig 1

Prevalence of different forms of life time sexual violence among housemaids attending night schools in urban setups of Gedeo zone, May 2019.

NB. Respondent can report more than one form of sexual violence.

Table 4

Prevalence of sexual violence among night school housemaid students in urban settings of Geode zone southern Ethiopia, May 2019.

Sexual violence	Frequency	Percent
Life-time* sexual violence	394	100
Yes	237	60.2
No	157	39.8
Perpetuator	237	100
Employer	38	16.0
Employer neighbor	16	6.8
Employer close relative	27	11.4
Broker or other intermediary	54	22.8
Friend	16	6.8
Group	11	4.6
75 ()
Unknown person	75	31.6
Age of the perpetrator	237	100
Same age	11	4.6
Older than me	81	34.2
Much older than me	146	61.6
Place of occurrence of the event	237	100
Employer home	65	27.3
School compound	38	15.9
Jungle	38	15.9
Hotel	5	2.3
Friends home	10	4.5
Perpetuators home	81	34.1

*Lifetime is a period during the respondents’ life as a housemaid

Factors associated with sexual violence among housemaids

After adjustment for possible confounders on multivariate analysis; age of the housemaid, childhood place of residence, duration of experience as a housemaid, relationship status of the housemaids, ever alcohol use by a housemaid and father’s educational level were identified to be significantly associated with life time sexual violence.

The result of multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that, housemaids aged 15–19 years were about four times [AOR: 3.75, 95% CI (1.88, 7.46] more likely to face sexual violence compared to those greater than or equal to 20 years. The odds of sexual violence was increased by 97% [AOR: 1.97, CI: (1.07, 3.63) for housemaids coming from rural area compared to those from urban. Regarding the year of experience as housemaid, those who worked for less than or equal to five years were three times [AOR: 3.10, CI: (1.60, 6.00)] more likely to be sexually violated compared to those who worked for more than five years.

Among the family characteristics, the odds of life time sexual violence was almost three times [AOR: 2.75, CI: (1.24, 6.08)] for those whose fathers had no formal education compared to those whose fathers educational level was secondary and above. Among the behavioral characteristics, the odds of life time sexual violence was about seven times [AOR: 6.77, CI: (2.65, 17.33)] higher among housemaids who ever used alcoholic beverages compared to those who never used any kind of alcoholic beverages.

On the other hand, housemaids who were not in a union were less likely to face sexual violence. In this regard, the likelihood of experiencing sexual violence for those who were not in union was decreased by 72% [AOR: 0.28, CI (0.13, 0.57)] compared to those who were in a union (Table 5).

Table 5

Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis result of the factors associated with sexual violence among housemaids attending night schools in urban settings of Gedeo zone Southern Ethiopia May 2019.

Variable	Sexual violence
	Yes	No	COR(95%CI)	AOR (95%CI)	P value
	Frequency (%)	Frequency (%)
Age category	237	157
15- 19years	188(67.4)	91(32.6)	2.78(1.78,4.34)	3.75(1.88,7.46)	<0.001
20–24 years	49(42.6)	66(57.4)	1	1
Child hood residence	237	157
Rural	183(63.5)	105(36.5)	1.67(1.07, 2.63)	1.97(1.07,3.63)	0.029
Urban	54(50.9)	52(49.1)	1	1
Monthly salary (Ethiopian Birr)	237	157
≤100	45(78.9)	12(21.1)	2.86(1.26, 6.48)	1.88(0.66, 5.39)	0.234
100–500	158(57)	119(43)	1.01(0.57, 1.78)	0. 72(0.32, 1.62)	0.435
>500	34(56.7)	26(43.3)	1	1
Marital status	237	157
Not in relationship	179(56.6)	137(43.4)	0.45(0.25, 0.78)	.28(0.13,0.57)	0.001
In a relation ship	58(74.4)	20(25.6)	1	1
Experience as a housemaid	237	157
Five years and below	195(68.2)	91(31.8)	3.36(2.12,5.33)	3.10 (1.60,6.00)	0.001
Above five years	42(38.9)	66(61.1)	1	1
Duration of stay in the present town	237	157
Five years and below	146(67.3)	71(32.7)	1.94(1.29,2.92)	0.79(0.41,1.54)	0.499
Above five years	91(51.4)	86(48.6)	1	1
Alcohol ever use	237	157
Yes	46(86.8)	7(13.2)	5.16(2.26,11.75)	6.77(2.65,17.33)	<0.001
No	191(56.0)	150(44)	1	1
Father education	237	157
No formal education	106(66.7)	53(33.3)	2.31(1.15, 4.64)	2.75(1.24,6.08)	0.012
Primary education	54(55.1)	44(44.9)	1.42(0.68,2.95)	1.38(0.55,3.44)	0.480
Secondary and above	19(46.3)	22(53.7)	1	1
Family support	237	157
Yes	51(51.0)	49(49)	1	1
No	186(63.3)	108(36.7)	1.65(1.04,2.61)	1.56(0.91,2.69)	0.106

Discussion

This study assessed the prevalence of sexual violence and associated phenomena among housemaids attending evening schools in urban settings in the Gedeo Zone. The results indicate that the lifetime prevalence of sexual violence among the housemaids is 60.2% (95% CI: 55.3%–64.5%). Notably, 52.8% of the incidents occurred within the past year. The level of sexual violence among the subjects of this study represents a significant public health concern, and it reflects similar findings in a study conducted in Hosaena, in which 57.75% of the housemaids had faced sexual violence [19]. An even greater incidence has been found in studies conducted in larger cities in Ethiopia, including Harar (72%) [8], Addis Ababa (76%) [20], and Mekele (84%) [21]. This discrepancy mainly reflects the different contexts of the studies, in which there were larger numbers of the target population in various Ethiopian cities with different cultural and socioeconomic characteristics.

The level of sexual violence among housemaids in Ethiopia was much higher than the findings of 29% in India [22], 26% in Brazil [23], and 14% in Portugal [24]. Research into the nature of gender-based violence faced by domestic workers in their workplaces in three South African provinces has also uncovered shocking levels of abuse and sexual harassment by employers, with few cases ever reported [25]. Furthermore, it is usually difficult to know the true dimensions and levels of sexual violence and there is a high possibility of under-reporting associated with the deep social stigma attached to sexual assault [26, 27]. This is typically happen among most of the victims of sexual violence like housemaids implying the intensive need for public attention.

The most common type of sexual violence was sexual harassment, which was reported by 230 (58.4%) of the study’s participants, supporting the findings of the study in Hosaena [19]. This demonstrates that harassment can occur in numerous ways in diverse social settings. The lifetime prevalence of completed and attempted rape among the study participants was 11.2% and 19.0%, respectively, and the findings of studies from Hawassa [28] and Rwanda [29] reveal comparable levels of rape and attempted rape. Smaller percentages of such incidents were reported in studies from Harar [8], Addis Ababa [17, 20] and Mekelle [21]. The extent of diverse types of sexual violence among the study participants in all these contexts and settings indicates a need for broad action to end violence against women, which remains a considerable obstacle to the achievement of women’s and girls’ human rights and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Another interesting finding regarding sexual violence among housemaids concerns the condition of their first sexual contact. In this study, 26.1% of the housemaid students had been sexually active, and 37.9% of them were coerced into their first sexual act, revealing the severity of a problem that results in a significant number of housemaids being forced into sex before they intend to do so. This finding is consistent with that of a study conducted in three low-income urban areas in Ethiopia, in which 30.3% of sexually active housemaids described their first sexual experience as occurring under coercive conditions [7].

This study reveals that younger housemaids were more likely to be sexually violated than older ones (above 20 years), a finding consistent with that of the study from Rwanda [29]. This finding is congruent to the finding from Kenya showing being aged less than 18 years as one of the factors associated with higher experience of sexual violence [30]. Younger housemaids are physically as well as psychologically immature and thus more easily manipulated; they may have insufficient experience to enforce clear boundaries for sexual activities and may be less able to object to unwanted advances. Moreover, their lack of maturity may hinder their recognizing of warning signs early, leading perpetrators to more readily target younger housemaids who offer little or no resistance to their sexual predation.

Alcohol use was another factor associated with sexual violence among housemaids. The results show that housemaids who had ever used alcohol were almost seven times more likely to be sexually violated than those who had never drunk alcohol. This finding is in line with the studies conducted among housemaids in Hawassa [28, 31] and Addis Ababa [17]. Similar finding was reported from WHO report on understanding and addressing violence against women [32]. Apparently, consuming alcohol makes it more difficult for housemaids to protect themselves by interpreting and effectively responding to warning signs.

In this study, involvement in a relationship was also significantly associated with lifetime sexual violence. Housemaids who were not in a union or married were 72% less likely to face sexual violence than those who were either married or in a union, suggesting that the main perpetrators of sexual violence were intimate partners. This is also congruent with other studies showing similar condition in sub-Saharan Africa including Ethiopia, where common perpetrators for sexual violence among the women were intimate partner [30, 33, 34]. Housemaids with a boyfriend or husband may be less likely to resist attempts at sexual violence for fear that doing so would end the relationship.

The study participants’ original area of residence was also significantly associated with lifetime sexual violence; housemaids from rural areas were almost twice as likely to be sexually violated as those from urban areas. Similarly, from study conducted in Northern part of Ethiopia housemaids who previously lived in rural areas were about three times more likely to face violence [35]. This is particularly due to the fact that housemaids from rural areas are less exposed to sexual and reproductive health information because media are not easily accessible in those areas. Additionally, they experience cultural alienation when they migrate to urban areas and may not speak the local language, causing them to face cultural and communication barriers that make them more vulnerable to sexual violence than housemaids from urban areas.

Regarding years of experience as a housemaid, those who had worked for less than five years were three times more likely to be sexually violated than those who had worked for more than five years. This is explained by the fact that housemaids who face any kind of sexual violence are less likely to remain in the sector and more likely to seek different employment to escape an abusive work environment. This conclusion is supported by the finding of a study conducted among out-of-school girls in six Ethiopian regions by the population council [7]. Additionally, housemaids who face sexual violence may be fired by female or male employers to conceal the matter and protect the employer’s reputation, reducing the likelihood of a housemaid’s remaining in the sector. Housemaids who do not face sexual violence are more likely to continue working as a housemaid and may have sufficient life experience to protect themselves from being sexually violated.

Strength and limitation of the study

This study was conducted to address the marginalized, vulnerable and the most neglected group of population with respect to sexual violence. However, important limitations were admitted in this study. The main limitation of this study was confinement to school attending housemaids which might not reflect the reality among the general population of all housemaids found in the sector. There was also serious limitation of literatures in the area to make more conclusive discussion.

Conclusion and recommendation

In the current study, sexual violence was found to be a major problem among going housemaids. Nearly two-third of the participants have faced at least one form of sexual violence. The life-time completed rape and attempted rape level were also substantially considerable. Younger ages, housemaids who are in union, less experienced housemaids, and those residing in rural area prior to the present place of work were more likely to experience sexual violence in this study. Thus, pragmatic intervention programs aiming to solve the problem of such vulnerable segment of populations needs to be in place. Government should focus this group particularly, with respect to labor laws and regulations to insure their basic human right. Further evidence generating studies focusing on effective interventions modalities to address this population should be taken in to consideration by researchers.

9 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-12624

Prevalence of sexual violence and its associated factors among housemaids attending evening schools in urban setups of Gedeo zone, Southern Ethiopia: A school based cross sectional study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shaka,

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 Dec 24 2020 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nülüfer Erbil, Ph.D, Prof.

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. Please address the following:

- Please include additional information regarding the interview guide used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a guide as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. In addition, please include the details of the pre-testing of this tool, i.e. the number of participants and where they were recruited from.

- Please refrain from stating p values as 0.00, either report the exact value or employ the format p<0.001.

3. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent.

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

In your revised cover letter, 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) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). 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 as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

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

5. 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 delete it from any other section.

6. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

7. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 and Table 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

8. Please include a copy of Table 3 which you refer to in your text on page 6.

[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: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Many expressions of the author are not standard, including the display of the table. For example, when the author expresses the result, sometimes the numbers are expressed in Arabic numerals, sometimes in words, and some sentences are not clear.Please refer to the published article format and expression for revision.

Reviewer #2: Does the manuscript adhere to the PLOS Data Policy? Additional details can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing. (Answer options: Yes, No

"I don’t know"

1. It is obvious that the writing need to be improved. I suggest the authors ask for a help from someone whose native language is English.

2. Section of “sample technique”:

1) The author described that a random cluster sampling was used to choose the evening school and then assigned the study participants according to the class grades. We didn’t find the class distribution of participants. Among the participants, “279 (70.8%) were adolescents (15-19 years old) whereas 115 (29.2%) were young adults (20- 24 years)”. Does the unbalanced sample exist?

2) “random sampling technique was used”, “data collectors were revisited the class room two times at different time intervals and for those who were absent after two revisits, the participant was replaced by another in the sampling frame”. How many women were replaced? Does the replace strategy have any effects on the study results?

3. Section of “measurement”

1) The sexual harassment is the most common of sexual violence experience for housemaid have experienced in this study. The author didn’t explain sexual harassment in detail, has one appropriate joke related to sex been included? If this, the proportion of sexual violence might be overestimated.

2) The alcoholic use has not been evaluated semi-quantitatively or quantitatively. This is a common-sense question: What time and how much of the alcohols consumption is the most important for the victim suffer from sexual violence.

4. Section of “results”:

1) In the descriptive analysis section, the author only needs to reveal the proportion of some important variables, for example those covariates lead to significant changes in the logistic model or other characteristic variables related to sexual violent founded from previous study.

2) Are the forms of the tables’ correct? Please refer to the author guidance of PLOS ONE.

5. Section of “Discussion”

1) The author discussed the results in comparability instead of analysis.

2) “This might be due to…”, “The possible explanation for this finding…”, “The possible suggestion might be…”, “This result might be due to …” were used by authors to explain the association between the related factors and sexual violence. It is suspicious that the author’s knowledge for the study field or the amounts of reference the author has read.

3) It is interesting for the findings that the educational attainments of fathers were associated with the sexual violence for the housemaids suffered. A health education system should be considered to help establishing an intimate father-daughter relationship in these districts.

**********

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.

7 Jan 2021

Rebuttal Letter_Response to reviewers

PONE-D-20-12624

Prevalence of sexual violence and its associated factors among housemaids attending evening schools in urban setups of Gedeo zone, Southern Ethiopia: A school based cross sectional study

PLOS ONE

2. Please address the following:

- Please include additional information regarding the interview guide used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a guide as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. In addition, please include the details of the pre-testing of this tool, i.e. the number of participants and where they were recruited from.

- Please refrain from stating p values as 0.00, either report the exact value or employ the format p<0.001.

Response: The detail about pretest was explained in the manuscript page four paragraph one. Additional information about the tool was included and due to copyright issue we couldn’t include as supporting information. P-value was corrected accordingly.

3. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent.

Response: It is explained in the manuscript under Ethical consideration section, page 6, Paragraph 1.

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

In your revised cover letter, 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) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). 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 as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

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

Response: We have uploaded the data on Dryad with DOI of https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.hhmgqnkfv

5. 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 delete it from any other section.

Response: Corrected accordingly. Page 6 paragraph 1

6. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Response: Corrected. Page 8

7. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 and Table 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

Response: We have corrected the typing error regarding the table numbers

8. Please include a copy of Table 3 which you refer to in your text on page 6.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Many expressions of the author are not standard, including the display of the table. For example, when the author expresses the result, sometimes the numbers are expressed in Arabic numerals, sometimes in words, and some sentences are not clear. Please refer to the published article format and expression for revision.

Response: We have tried to make the presentation of the table to be to the standard. Unnecessary, numerical presentations in the table were modified

Reviewer #2: Does the manuscript adhere to the PLOS Data Policy? Additional details can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing. (Answer options: Yes, No

"I don’t know"

1. It is obvious that the writing need to be improved. I suggest the authors ask for a help from someone whose native language is English.

Response: The manuscript English writing was proofread by Proffessional proofreaders to improve readability.

2. Section of “sample technique”:

1) The author described that a random cluster sampling was used to choose the evening school and then assigned the study participants according to the class grades. We didn’t find the class distribution of participants. Among the participants, “279 (70.8%) were adolescents (15-19 years old) whereas 115 (29.2%) were young adults (20- 24 years)”. Does the unbalanced sample exist

Response: Class distribution of the students was briefly explained in the methodology under sampling technique subsection page 4. Regarding issue about existence of unbalanced sampling, the proportion is not due to unbalanced sampling. It entirely due to the actual age distribution of the population.

2) “random sampling technique was used”, “data collectors were revisited the class room two times at different time intervals and for those who were absent after two revisits, the participant was replaced by another in the sampling frame”. How many women were replaced? Does the replace strategy have any effects on the study results?

Response: The number of women who replaced for their absence was not significant where only three women were missed and replaced. Replacement was also made by randomly selecting the participant from the previously unselected eligible population.

3. Section of “measurement”

1) The sexual harassment is the most common of sexual violence experience for housemaid have experienced in this study. The author didn’t explain sexual harassment in detail, has one appropriate joke related to sex been included? If this, the proportion of sexual violence might be overestimated.

Response: Explained under measurement subsection second paragraph page 5

2) The alcoholic use has not been evaluated semi-quantitatively or quantitatively. This is a common-sense question: What time and how much of the alcohols consumption is the most important for the victim suffer from sexual violence.

Response: The ASSIST tool is standard tool for assessment of the common substance uses based on the frequency and duration of use. We used that tool. With that tool we couldn’t find any women fulfilling criteria for substance use. So we measure the episodes of occasional use and classified alcohol use as ever use or not at all

4. Section of “results”:

1) In the descriptive analysis section, the author only needs to reveal the proportion of some important variables, for example those covariates lead to significant changes in the logistic model or other characteristic variables related to sexual violent founded from previous study.

Response: We have tried to remove some variables thought to be less important to present in this study. However, as one of the objective of this study is to describe the violence and the characteristics of the study participants, we retained most of the variables thought to have relevant descriptive information.

2) Are the forms of the tables’ correct? Please refer to the author guidance of PLOS ONE.

5. Section of “Discussion”

1) The author discussed the results in comparability instead of analysis.

Response: We have tried to present with the analysis of the findings

2) “This might be due to…”, “The possible explanation for this finding…”, “The possible suggestion might be…”, “This result might be due to …” were used by authors to explain the association between the related factors and sexual violence. It is suspicious that the author’s knowledge for the study field or the amounts of reference the author has read.

Response: We have modified our way of explanation accordingly

3) It is interesting for the findings that the educational attainments of fathers were associated with the sexual violence for the housemaids suffered. A health education system should be considered to help establishing an intimate father-daughter relationship in these districts.

Response: The finding of the study was disseminated to the local health planners and this will be an input to address the issue.

________________________________________

Thank you for your interesting and valuable comments that made us to improve our work substantially.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

10 Jun 2021

PONE-D-20-12624R1

Prevalence of sexual violence and its associated factors among housemaids attending evening schools in urban settings of Gedeo zone, Southern Ethiopia: A school based cross sectional study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shaka,

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 Jul 25 2021 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: http://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,

Nülüfer Erbil, Ph.D, Prof.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: The authours have addressed my previous comments. I am satisfated with their hard working on the field.

Reviewer #3: I think, this study is an important addition to the literatüre, but I have some minor concerns.

Data collection

The authors used the face to face interview how did the participants feel comfortable such a sensitive issue? How did they prevent the bias and protect the correct of the answer?

why did the author create the survey English language? Are these instruments available in their language, if not, did you make content and language validity of them?

Ethical Consideration

The main concern has protected minors, how did you protect them, when they disclosure sexual violence. What is your legal responsibility for the researcher? Is it any mandatory report about disclosure about SV. Please give your legal policy about this concern..

Discussion

some findings haven't discussed, if they don't discuss, you should eliminate some findings based on your discussion.

Please give the broader literature by supporting international and national studies.

Please give some other references.

for the international audience please give the other global studies results too.

the whole discussion should support the international and national references

some findings haven't discussed, if they don't discuss, you should eliminate some findings based on your discussion.

The main limitation in this study seems that it was neglected to child protection

I found the other review changes satisfactory for manuscript .

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-12624_R1 reviewer.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

5 Sep 2021

Response to reviewers

• The authors used the face to face interview how did the participants feel comfortable such a sensitive issue? How did they prevent the bias and protect the correct of the answer?

o From the report of the data collectors during the time of pre-test, the feeling of the respondents for the questions was not embarrassing and the respondents were very comfortable with the approach. The same was reported form the daily routine follow up of actual data collection

o The data collectors were well trained to handle such issue

o The participants were adequately reassured for the confidentiality of the information they provide

o The interview was conducted at isolated place with adequate privacy

• Why did the author create the survey English language? Are these instruments available in their language, if not, did you make content and language validity of them?

We have used the survey tool that was used previously in comparable settings. We couldn’t find the tool in local language. We have tried to familiarize it with the context through pre-test and training of the surveyors.

• Ethical Consideration

The main concern has protected minors, how did you protect them, when they disclosure sexual violence. What is your legal responsibility for the researcher? Is it any mandatory report about disclosure about SV. Please give your legal policy about this concern.

Confidentiality of the response was highly secured. As a researcher, we have provided contact information for any possible risk associated with the disclosure information during data collection. The respondents were advised for possible legal body and regulation regarding sexual violence according to guiding principle of acting in the best interests of the child. Otherwise, the right to lodge a complaint shall be exercised only by legal representative according to regulation in the locality and most of the participants of our study were older children (>15 years) and there were no issues regarding capacity to consent or a relationship of power as of our data collectors report from day to day follow up.

Discussion

• We have revised the discussion according to your suggestion including discussion of findings that were missed in the previous revision

Thank you for your constructive comments. We are really appreciate the contribution you made to the improvement of our work.

Mohammed Feyisso Shaka

Kalkidan Gezahagn

Selamawith Semagn

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

11 Oct 2021

Prevalence of sexual violence and its associated factors among housemaids attending evening schools in urban settings of Gedeo zone, Southern Ethiopia: A school based cross sectional study

PONE-D-20-12624R2

Dear Dr. Shaka,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, 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,

Nülüfer Erbil, Ph.D, Prof.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

21 Oct 2021

PONE-D-20-12624R2

Prevalence of sexual violence and its associated factors among housemaids attending evening schools in urban settings of Gedeo zone, Southern Ethiopia: A school based cross sectional study

Dear Dr. Shaka:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Nülüfer Erbil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE