Changing the norms that drive intimate partner violence: findings from a cluster randomised trial on what predisposes bystanders to take action in Kampala, Uganda

Tanya Abramsky, Tina Musuya, Sophie Namy, Charlotte Watts, Lori Michau, Tanya Abramsky, Tina Musuya, Sophie Namy, Charlotte Watts, Lori Michau

Abstract

Introduction: Despite widespread calls to end violence against women, there remains limited evidence on how to prevent it. Community-level programmes seek to engage all levels of the community in changing norms that drive intimate partner violence (IPV). However, little is known about what predisposes ordinary people to become active in violence prevention.

Methods: Using data from the SASA! study, a cluster randomised trial of a community mobilisation intervention in Kampala, Uganda, we explore which community members are most likely to intervene when they witness IPV. A cross-sectional survey of community members (18-49 years) was conducted 4 years after intervention implementation began (2012). Among those who had seen IPV in their community (past year), multivariate logistic regression, disaggregated by sex and trial arm, explored the associations between 'trying to help' and demographics, IPV experience (women)/perpetration (men), childhood abuse experiences, IPV attitudes and SASA! exposure.

Results: Overall, SASA! community members were more likely to intervene than their control counterparts (57% vs 31%). In control communities, older age (women), increasing relationship duration (men), talking to neighbours (men) and believing it is okay for a woman to tell if she is experiencing IPV (men) were positively associated with trying to help. In SASA! communities associated factors were increasing relationship duration (women/men), employment (women), talking to neighbours (women), childhood abuse experiences (women), lifetime IPV (women/men), IPV-related attitudes (women/men) and greater SASA! exposure (women/men).

Conclusions: Differing results between intervention and control communities suggest contextual factors may modify the effects of personal characteristics/experiences on helping behaviours. Motivation to act brought about by personal experiences of IPV, for example, might only propel individuals into action if they are equipped with the skills, confidence and support of others to do so. Community mobilisation can help create environments and synergies supportive of action.

Trial registration number: NCT00790959.

Study protocol: Available at http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/13/1/96.

Keywords: Uganda; bystander intervention; community mobilisation; intimate partner violence; violence prevention.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: LM is Co-Director of Raising Voices and designed the SASA! intervention. TM is the Director of CEDOVIP and in charge of the implementation of the SASA! intervention. They have played a central role in ensuring the appropriate conceptualisation and implementation of the evaluation, including the topics covered in the study questionnaire, the implementation of the fieldwork and ensuring the provision of support to women requesting assistance. They have had no involvement in the randomisation of matched community pairs, no direct involvement in data collection for the CRT and no involvement with the data analysis. SN joined Raising Voices as the Learning Coordinator after the completion of the CRT. LM, TM and SN have input into the interpretation of the findings. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Conceptual framework outlining hypothesised individual-level influences on community members’ propensity to take action if they see/hear intimate partner violence (IPV) in their community.

References

    1. Devries KM, Mak JY, García-Moreno C, et al. . Global health. The global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science 2013;340:1527–8. 10.1126/science.1240937
    1. Heise LL, Kotsadam A. Cross-national and multilevel correlates of partner violence: an analysis of data from population-based surveys. Lancet Glob Health 2015;3:e332–e340. 10.1016/S2214-109X(15)00013-3
    1. World Health Organization, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, South African Medical Research Council Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2013.
    1. Ellsberg M, Arango DJ, Morton M, et al. . Prevention of violence against women and girls: what does the evidence say? Lancet 2015;385:1555–66. 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61703-7
    1. Pronyk PM, Hargreaves JR, Kim JC, et al. . Effect of a structural intervention for the prevention of intimate-partner violence and HIV in rural South Africa: a cluster randomised trial. Lancet 2006;368:1973–83. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69744-4
    1. Jewkes R, Nduna M, Levin J, et al. . Impact of stepping stones on incidence of HIV and HSV-2 and sexual behaviour in rural South Africa: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2008;337:a506 10.1136/bmj.a506
    1. Hossain M, Zimmerman C, Kiss L, et al. . Working with men to prevent intimate partner violence in a conflict-affected setting: a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial in rural Côte d’Ivoire. BMC Public Health 2014;14:339 10.1186/1471-2458-14-339
    1. Heise L. What works to prevent partner violence? An evidence overview. London: STRIVE Research Consortium, 2011.
    1. Heise LL. Violence against women: an integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women 1998;4:262–90. 10.1177/1077801298004003002
    1. Abramsky T, Devries K, Kiss L, et al. . Findings from the SASA! Study: a cluster randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of a community mobilization intervention to prevent violence against women and reduce HIV risk in Kampala, Uganda. BMC Med 2014;12:122 10.1186/s12916-014-0122-5
    1. Wagman JA, Gray RH, Campbell JC, et al. . Effectiveness of an integrated intimate partner violence and HIV prevention intervention in Rakai, Uganda: analysis of an intervention in an existing cluster randomised cohort. Lancet Glob Health 2015;3:e23–e33. 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70344-4
    1. Planty M. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Third-party involvement in violent crime, 1993-99. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 2002.
    1. Hamby S, Weber MC, Grych J, et al. . What difference do bystanders make? The association of bystander involvement with victim outcomes in a community sample. Psychol Violence 2016;6:91–102. 10.1037/a0039073
    1. Banyard VL, Plante EG, Moynihan MM. Bystander education: Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention. J Community Psychol 2004;32:61–79. 10.1002/jcop.10078
    1. Fenton RA, Mott HL, McCartan K, et al. . A review of evidence for bystander intervention to prevent sexual and domestic violence in universities. Bristol: Public Health England, 2016.
    1. Abramsky T, Devries KM, Michau L, et al. . The impact of SASA!, a community mobilisation intervention, on women's experiences of intimate partner violence: secondary findings from a cluster randomised trial in Kampala, Uganda. J Epidemiol Community Health 2016;70:818–25. 10.1136/jech-2015-206665
    1. Latané B, Darley JM. The unresponsive bystander : why doesn't he help? Englewood Cliffs. 131 Prentice-Hall, 1970.
    1. Kelly JG. Becoming ecological : an expedition into community psychology. 318 New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
    1. Banyard VL. Who will help prevent sexual violence: Creating an ecological model of bystander intervention. Psychol Violence 2011;1:216–29. 10.1037/a0023739
    1. Banyard V, Weber MC, Grych J, et al. . Where are the helpful bystanders? Ecological niche and victims’ perceptions of bystander intervention. J Community Psychol 2016;44:214–31. 10.1002/jcop.21760
    1. McCauley HL, Tancredi DJ, Silverman JG, et al. . Gender-equitable attitudes, bystander behavior, and recent abuse perpetration against heterosexual dating partners of male high school athletes. Am J Public Health 2013;103:1882–7. 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301443
    1. Menning CL. Unsafe at any house?: attendees' perceptions of microlevel environmental traits and personal safety at fraternity and nonfraternity parties. J Interpers Violence 2009;24:1714–34. 10.1177/0886260509331515
    1. Banyard VL. The Promise of a Bystander Approach to Violence Prevention, in Toward the Next Generation of Bystander Prevention of Sexual and Relationship Violence. New York: Springer International Publishing, 2015.
    1. Breaking the Cycle Bystander Survey. Opinion Research Corporation, 2006.
    1. Banyard VL. Measurement and correlates of prosocial bystander behavior: the case of interpersonal violence. Violence Vict 2008;23:83–97. 10.1891/0886-6708.23.1.83
    1. Frye V. The informal social control of intimate partner violence against women: Exploring personal attitudes and perceived neighborhood social cohesion. J Community Psychol 2007;35:1001–18. 10.1002/jcop.20209
    1. Banyard VL, Plante EG, Moynihan MM. Rape Prevention Through Bystander Education: Bringing a Broader Community Perspective to Sexual Violence Prevention. Washington DC, 2005.
    1. Stürmer S, Snyder M, Omoto AM. Prosocial emotions and helping: the moderating role of group membership. J Pers Soc Psychol 2005;88:532–46. 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.532
    1. Nabi RL, Horner JR, Homer J. Victims with voices: How abused women conceptualize the problem of spousal abuse and implications for intervention and prevention. J Fam Violence 2001;16:237–53. 10.1023/A:1011134231804
    1. Chabot HF, Tracy TL, Manning CA, et al. . Sex, attribution, and severity influence intervention decisions of informal helpers in domestic violence. J Interpers Violence 2009;24:1696–713. 10.1177/0886260509331514
    1. Nicksa SC. Bystander's willingness to report theft, physical assault, and sexual assault: the impact of gender, anonymity, and relationship with the offender. J Interpers Violence 2014;29:217–36. 10.1177/0886260513505146
    1. West A, Wandrei ML. Intimate partner violence - A model for predicting interventions by informal helpers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2002;17:972–86.
    1. Shotland RL, Stebbins CA. Bystander Response to Rape: Can A Victim Attract Help?1. J Appl Soc Psychol 1980;10:510–27. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1980.tb00729.x
    1. Green DP, Wilke A, Cooper J. Silence Begets Violence: A mass media experiment to prevent violence against women in rural Uganda. Newhaven, CT: Innovations for Poverty, 2018.
    1. Powell A. Review of bystander approaches in support of preventing violence against women. Victoria, Australia: Carlton, 2011.
    1. Storer HL, Casey E, Herrenkohl T. Efficacy of Bystander Programs to Prevent Dating Abuse Among Youth and Young Adults: A Review of the Literature. Trauma Violence Abuse 2016;17:256–69. 10.1177/1524838015584361
    1. Banyard VL, Moynihan MM, Plante EG. Sexual violence prevention through bystander education: An experimental evaluation. J Community Psychol 2007;35:463–81. 10.1002/jcop.20159
    1. Moynihan MM, Banyard VL, Arnold JS, et al. . Engaging intercollegiate athletes in preventing and intervening in sexual and intimate partner violence. J Am Coll Health 2010;59:197–204. 10.1080/07448481.2010.502195
    1. Coker AL, Cook-Craig PG, Williams CM, et al. . Evaluation of Green Dot: an active bystander intervention to reduce sexual violence on college campuses. Violence Against Women 2011;17:777–96. 10.1177/1077801211410264
    1. Gidycz CA, Orchowski LM, Berkowitz AD. Preventing sexual aggression among college men: an evaluation of a social norms and bystander intervention program. Violence Against Women 2011;17:720–42. 10.1177/1077801211409727
    1. Coker AL, Bush HM, Cook-Craig PG, et al. . RCT Testing Bystander Effectiveness to Reduce Violence. Am J Prev Med 2017;52:566–78. 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.01.020
    1. Salazar LF, Vivolo-Kantor A, Hardin J, et al. . A web-based sexual violence bystander intervention for male college students: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2014;16:e203 10.2196/jmir.3426
    1. Jouriles EN, Krauss A, Vu NL, et al. . Bystander programs addressing sexual violence on college campuses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of program outcomes and delivery methods. J Am Coll Health 2018;66:457–66. 10.1080/07448481.2018.1431906
    1. Michau L. The SASA ! Activist Kit for Preventing Violence against Women and HIV. Kampala, Uganda: Raising Voices, 2008.
    1. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Norcross JC. In search of how people change. Applications to addictive behaviors. Am Psychol 1992;47:1102–14. 10.1037/0003-066X.47.9.1102
    1. Abramsky T, Devries K, Kiss L, et al. . A community mobilisation intervention to prevent violence against women and reduce HIV/AIDS risk in Kampala, Uganda (the SASA! Study): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial. Trials 2012;13:96 10.1186/1745-6215-13-96
    1. Watts C, Heise LL, Ellsberg M, et al. . Putting women’s safety first: ethical and safety recommendations for research on domestic violence against women. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1999.
    1. Garcia-Moreno CJ, Ellsberg M, Heise LL, et al. . WHO Multi-Country Study on Womens Health an Domestic Violence against women. Geneva: WHO, 2005.
    1. Deitz SR, Blackwell KT, Daley PC, et al. . Measurement of empathy toward rape victims and rapists. J Pers Soc Psychol 1982;43:372–84. 10.1037/0022-3514.43.2.372
    1. Kyegombe N, Starmann E, Devries KM, et al. . 'SASA! is the medicine that treats violence'. Qualitative findings on how a community mobilisation intervention to prevent violence against women created change in Kampala, Uganda. Glob Health Action 2014;7:25082 10.3402/gha.v7.25082
    1. Berkowitz A. Response Ability: A complete Guide to Bystander Intervention. Chicago: Beck and Company, 2009.
    1. Evans CB, Smokowski PR. Prosocial bystander behavior in bullying dynamics: Assessing the impact of social capital. J Youth Adolesc 2015;44:2289–307. 10.1007/s10964-015-0338-5
    1. Jenkins LN, Fredrick SS. Social capital and bystander behavior in bullying: Internalizing problems as a barrier to prosocial intervention. J Youth Adolesc 2017;46:757–71. 10.1007/s10964-017-0637-0
    1. Edwards KM, Mattingly MJ, Dixon KJ, et al. . Community matters: intimate partner violence among rural young adults. Am J Community Psychol 2014;53(1-2):198–207. 10.1007/s10464-014-9633-7
    1. Ellsberg M, Heise L, Peña R, et al. . Researching domestic violence against women: methodological and ethical considerations. Stud Fam Plann 2001;32:1–16. 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2001.00001.x
    1. Ellsberg M, Heise L. The Challenge of Defining and Measuring Violence in Quantitative Research, in Researching Violence Against Women: A Practical Guide for Researchers and Activists. Washington DC: World Health Organisation, PATH, 2005.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir