Ecological pathways to prevention: How does the SASA! community mobilisation model work to prevent physical intimate partner violence against women?

Tanya Abramsky, Karen M Devries, Lori Michau, Janet Nakuti, Tina Musuya, Ligia Kiss, Nambusi Kyegombe, Charlotte Watts, Tanya Abramsky, Karen M Devries, Lori Michau, Janet Nakuti, Tina Musuya, Ligia Kiss, Nambusi Kyegombe, Charlotte Watts

Abstract

Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women is a global public health concern. While community-level gender norms and attitudes to IPV are recognised drivers of IPV risk, there is little evidence on how interventions might tackle these drivers to prevent IPV at the community-level. This secondary analysis of data from the SASA! study explores the pathways through which SASA!, a community mobilisation intervention to prevent violence against women, achieved community-wide reductions in physical IPV.

Methods: From 2007 to 2012 a cluster randomised controlled trial (CRT) was conducted in eight communities in Kampala, Uganda. Cross-sectional surveys of a random sample of community members, aged 18-49, were undertaken at baseline (n = 1583) and 4 years post intervention implementation (n = 2532). We used cluster-level intention to treat analysis to estimate SASA!'s community-level impact on women's past year experience of physical IPV and men's past year perpetration of IPV. The mediating roles of community-, relationship- and individual-level factors in intervention effect on past year physical IPV experience (women)/perpetration (men) were explored using modified Poisson regression models.

Results: SASA! was associated with reductions in women's past year experience of physical IPV (0.48, 95 % CI 0.16-1.39), as well as men's perpetration of IPV (0.39, 95 % CI 0.20-0.73). Community-level normative attitudes were the most important mediators of intervention impact on physical IPV risk, with norms around the acceptability of IPV explaining 70 % of the intervention effect on women's experience of IPV and 95 % of the effect on men's perpetration. The strongest relationship-level mediators were men's reduced suspicion of partner infidelity (explaining 22 % of effect on men's perpetration), and improved communication around sex (explaining 16 % of effect on women's experience). Reduced acceptability of IPV among men was the most important individual-level mediator (explaining 42 % of effect on men's perpetration).

Conclusions: These results highlight the important role of community-level norm-change in achieving community-wide reductions in IPV risk. They lend strong support for the more widespread adoption of community-level approaches to preventing violence.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00790959 . Registered 13th November 2008. The study protocol is available at: http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/13/1/96.

Keywords: Community mobilisation; East Africa; Gender based violence; Impact evaluation; Intimate partner violence; Pathways analysis; Uganda; Violence prevention.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
4 phases of SASA!
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Conceptual framework – pathways to reduced IPV risk

References

    1. Devries KM, Mak JY, Bacchus LJ, Child JC, Falder G, Petzold M, et al. Intimate partner violence and incident depressive symptoms and suicide attempts: a systematic review of longitudinal studies. PLoS Med. 2013;10(5):e1001439. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001439.
    1. Jewkes RK, Dunkle K, Nduna M, Shai N. Intimate partner violence, relationship power inequity, and incidence of HIV infection in young women in South Africa: a cohort study. Lancet. 2010;376(9734):41–8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60548-X.
    1. Zablotska IB, Gray RH, Koenig MA, Serwadda D, Nalugoda F, Kigozi G, et al. Alcohol use, intimate partner violence, sexual coercion and HIV among women aged 15–24 in Rakai, Uganda. AIDS Behav. 2009;13(2):225–33. doi: 10.1007/s10461-007-9333-5.
    1. Kouyoumdjian FG, Calzavara LM, Bondy SJ, O’Campo P, Serwadda D, Nalugoda F, et al. Intimate partner violence is associated with incident HIV infection in women in Uganda. AIDS. 2013;27(8):1331–8. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e32835fd851.
    1. Devries KM, Mak JY, Garcia-Moreno C, Petzold M, Child JC, Falder G, et al. Global health. The global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science. 2013;340(6140):1527–8. doi: 10.1126/science.1240937.
    1. Heise LL. Violence against women: an integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women. 1998;4(3):262–90. doi: 10.1177/1077801298004003002.
    1. Heise L. What works to prevent partner violence? An evidence overview. London: STRIVE Research Consortium; 2011.
    1. Heise L. Determinants of partner violence in Brazil and Peru: Exploring variation in individual and population level risk. London: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; 2011.
    1. Heise L, Kotsadam A. Exploring cross-national and multi-level correlates of partner violence: an analysis of data from population-based surveys. Lancet Glob Health. 2015;3(6):332–40. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(15)00013-3.
    1. Uthman OA, Moradi T, Lawoko S. Are individual and community acceptance and witnessing of intimate partner violence related to its occurrence? Multilevel structural equation model. PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e27738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027738.
    1. Boyle MH, Georgiades K, Cullen J, Racine Y. Community influences on intimate partner violence in India: Women’s education, attitudes towards mistreatment and standards of living. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(5):691–7. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.06.039.
    1. Koenig MA, Stephenson R, Ahmed S, Jejeebhoy SJ, Campbell J. Individual and contextual determinants of domestic violence in North India. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(1):132–8. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.050872.
    1. Levinson D. Family violence in cross-cultural perspective. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 1989.
    1. Koenig MA, Ahmed S, Hossain MB, Khorshed Alam Mozumder AB. Women’s status and domestic violence in rural Bangladesh: individual- and community-level effects. Demography. 2003;40(2):269–88. doi: 10.1353/dem.2003.0014.
    1. Ackerson LK, Kawachi I, Barbeau EM, Subramanian SV. Effects of individual and proximate educational context on intimate partner violence: a population-based study of women in India. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(3):507–14. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.113738.
    1. Gage AJ. Women’s experience of intimate partner violence in Haiti. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(2):343–64. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.078.
    1. Counts D, Brown J, Campbell J. Sanctions and sanctuary: cultural perspectives on the beating of wives. Boulder (CO): Westview Press; 1992.
    1. Abramsky T, Watts CH, Garcia-Moreno C, Devries K, Kiss L, Ellsberg M, et al. What factors are associated with recent intimate partner violence? findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:109. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-109.
    1. Hindin M, Kishor S, Ansara D. Intimate partner violence among couples in 10 DHS countries: Predictors and health outcomes. Calverton: Macro International Inc.; 2008.
    1. Jewkes R. Intimate partner violence: causes and prevention. Lancet. 2002;359(9315):1423–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08357-5.
    1. Ellsberg M, Arango DJ, Morton M, Gennari F, Kiplesund S, Contreras M, et al. Prevention of violence against women and girls: what does the evidence say? Lancet. 2015;385(9977):1555–1566. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61703-7.
    1. Pronyk PM, Hargreaves JR, Kim JC, Morison LA, Phetla G, Watts C, 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(9551):1973–83. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69744-4.
    1. Jewkes R, Nduna M, Levin J, Jama N, Dunkle K, Puren A, 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. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a506.
    1. Hossain M, Zimmerman C, Kiss L, Abramsky T, Kone D, Bakayoko-Topolska M, et al. Working with men to prevent intimate partner violence in a conflict-affected setting: a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial in rural Cote d’Ivoire. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:339. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-339.
    1. Usdin S, Scheepers E, Goldstein S, Japhet G. Achieving social change on gender-based violence: a report on the impact evaluation of Soul City’s fourth series. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(11):2434–45. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.04.035.
    1. Solorzano I, Bank A, Pena R, Espinoza H, Ellsberg M, Pulerwitz J. Catalyzing personal and social change around gender, sexuality, and HIV: Impact evaluation of Puntos de Encuentro’s communication strategy in Nicaragua. Washington DC: Population Council; 2008.
    1. Abramsky T, Devries KM, Kiss L, Nakuti J, Kyegombe N, Starmann E, 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 educe HIV risk in Kampala, Uganda. BMC Med. 2014;12:122. doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0122-5.
    1. Wagman JA, Gray RH, Campbell JC, Thoma M, Ndyanabo A, Ssekasanvu J, 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(1):e23–33. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70344-4.
    1. Uganda Ministry of Health and ICF International. Uganda AIDS Indicator Survey 2011: Key Findings. Calverton, Maryland, USA: 2012.
    1. Uganda Bureau of Statistics and ICF International Inc . Uganda Demographic and Health Survey 2011. Calverton: Measure DHS, ICF International; 2012.
    1. Michau L. The SASA ! Activist Kit for Preventing Violence against Women and HIV. Kampala: Raising Voices; 2008.
    1. Prochaska JO, Diclemente CC, Norcross JC. In search of How people change - applications to addictive behaviors. Am Psychol. 1992;47(9):1102–14. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.47.9.1102.
    1. Abramsky T, Devries K, Kiss L, Francisco L, Nakuti J, Musuya T, 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. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-96.
    1. Kyegombe N, Starmann E, Devries KM, Michau L, Nakuti J, Musuya T, 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.
    1. Garcia-Moreno CJH, Ellsberg M, Heise L, Watts C. WHO multi-country study on womens health an domestic violence against women. Geneva: WHO; 2005.
    1. Uganda Bureau of Statistics and Macro International Inc . Uganda demographic and health survey 2006. Calverton: UBOS and Macro International Inc.; 2007.
    1. Abramsky T, Francisco L, Kiss L, Michau L, Musuya T, Kaye D, et al. SASA! baseline report. Kampala: Raising Voices, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; 2010.
    1. Zou GY, Donner A. Extension of the modified Poisson regression model to prospective studies with correlated binary data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2013;22(6):661–70. doi: 10.1177/0962280211427759.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner