Comment on ‘Screening Intimate Partner Violence During Pregnancy in Maternity Clinics—Views of Finnish Public Health Nurses’

We read with great interest the study by Lähteenmäki et al. examining Finnish public health nurses' (PHNs) views on screening for intimate partner violence (IPV) during pregnancy 1. The authors provide a valuable perspective on the operational realities of IPV screening in maternity clinics and contribute to a nuanced understanding of the facilitators and barriers within the Finnish healthcare system. We agree that this work makes a crucial contribution to the IPV screening discourse by identifying implementation challenges in real-world clinical settings. However, several methodological and interpretive aspects suggest important next research steps that could deepen this understanding. First, while the authors clearly stated that their study aimed to qualitatively explore PHNs' perspectives on IPV screening rather than quantify screening outcomes, future research could beneficially extend these findings by quantifying or stratifying screening uptake and disclosure rates by region, organisational structure, and professional experience. Such data would help determine whether systematic guidelines correspond to consistent implementation or remain policy-level aspirations 2. This represents a logical next phase of investigation rather than a flaw in the present study's qualitative design. Quantitative metrics could reveal whether screening fidelity varies across demographic or institutional contexts and whether missed opportunities for screening influence early identification of at-risk pregnancies. Second, the current study's qualitative focus on PHN-reported impressions provides valuable context but could, in subsequent research, be complemented with objective measures of disclosure verification or patient-reported outcomes. Integrating these perspectives would clarify whether conversational engagement translates into effective intervention. Given that IPV-related maternal and foetal complications (e.g., low birth weight and preterm delivery) are well documented 3, mixed-methods approaches could illuminate the relationship between provider awareness and measurable maternal health outcomes. Additionally, the reported reliance on discretion, intuition, and cultural cues to guide screening may perpetuate disparities. While the study commendably identifies cultural and linguistic barriers, the authors' suggestion for ‘multilingual screening tools’ remains vague and unaccompanied by implementation strategies or feasibility evaluations. This is particularly concerning in light of the 9% foreign-language population in Finland and the finding that foreign-language speakers were less frequently screened, as the authors themselves stated. Overall, the study's findings substantially advance understanding of the practical challenges in IPV screening policy implementation. Framing the above issues as next research steps—rather than as flaws—helps contextualize the paper's qualitative contributions while identifying necessary directions for quantitative inquiry. Continued investigation integrating both qualitative insights and quantitative validation will further clarify how structured IPV screening influences disclosure rates and maternal outcomes. Prajnasini Satapathy: conceptualization, methodology, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Rachana Mehta: writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Ranjana Sah: validation, supervision, project administration, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Generative AI Use Statement: Generative AI tools, including Paperpal and ChatGPT-4o, were utilised solely for language refinement, grammar enhancement and stylistic refinement. These tools had no role in the conceptualization, data analysis, interpretation of results or substantive content development of this manuscript. All intellectual contributions, data analysis and scientific interpretations remain the sole work of the authors. The final content was critically reviewed and edited to ensure accuracy and originality. The authors take full responsibility for the accuracy, originality and integrity of the work presented. The authors have nothing to report. The authors have nothing to report. The authors have nothing to report. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.