| Literature DB >> 29357843 |
Andrew Gibbs1, Julienne Corboz2, Mohammed Shafiq3, Frozan Marofi3, Anna Mecagni4, Carron Mann4, Fazal Karim3, Esnat Chirwa2, Charlotte Maxwell-Jones5, Rachel Jewkes2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is the most common form of violence in conflict and post-conflict settings, but there are few evaluations of interventions to prevent IPV in such settings.Entities:
Keywords: Afghanistan; Baseline; Economic empowerment; Gender transformation; Intervention; Trial
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29357843 PMCID: PMC5778673 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-018-5029-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1Theory of Change: Women for Women International Programme, specifically for IPV reduction
Primary and secondary outcomes for the trial
| Number of items and origins | Example question and response categories | Scaling | Alpha | Hypothesized direction | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary outcomes | |||||
| Past year experience of physical IPV amongst currently married women | Five items ask about married women’s experience of physical IPV. The scale is based on the WHO’s multi-country study of IPV [ | (Q) In the past 12 months how many times has your husband hit you with a fist or with something else which could hurt you? | A positive response to one or more items coded as yes | Decrease | |
| Past year experience of severe physical IPV amongst currently married women | Same scale as above. Severe physical IPV is defined as experiencing more than one item of the five, or experiencing any one item more than once, creating a dichotomous measure equivalent to more than once experiencing physical IPV. | (Q) In the past 12 months how many times has your husband slapped you or thrown something at you which could hurt you? | Two or more items responded to as ‘once’ or responding to any single item as “few”, or “many”. | Decrease | |
| Women’s past week depressive symptoms | Depressive symptoms are assessed using the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale (CES-D), comprising 20 items asking about depressive symptoms in the past week [ | (Q) During the past week I had crying spells | Mean score created; higher mean’s more depressive symptoms | 0.90 | Decrease |
| Secondary outcomes | |||||
| Household Food Insecurity in past 4 weeks | Three items comprising the Household Hunger Scale, developed for global use and comparability [ | (Q) In the past 4 weeks, how often was there no food to eat of any kind in your house because of a lack of money? | Mean score created; higher indicates more food insecurity | 0.94 | Decrease |
| Financial shock resilience | One item asks about ability to mobilise money in an emergency. This measure was developed for use in South Africa, and has been used in Asia. | (Q) If you had an emergency at home and needed 500 Afghani, how easy would you say it would be to find the money? | Recoded into binary of very or fairly easy and somewhat difficult or very difficult | Decrease | |
| Women’s monthly income | A single item asks about earnings in the past month. | (Q) Considering all the money you earned from jobs or selling things, how much did you earn last month? | Mean | Increase | |
| Women’s total savings | A single item asks women the total value that they have in savings. | (Q) How much money have you got in savings? | Mean | Increase | |
| Life satisfaction | Life satisfaction is assessed using four-items derived from the Satisfaction With Life Scale [ | (Q) In most ways my life is close to my ideal | Mean; higher means less satisfied | 0.90 | Decrease |
| Past four week suicidal ideation | A single item assesses thoughts of suicide in the past month, with a binary response possible. | (Q) In the past four weeks, has the thought of ending your life been in your mind? | Binary yes/no | Decrease | |
| Women’s gender attitudes | This scale was developed locally from discussions with Afghan’s before being tested in Pakistan. A series of 11 questions ask about gender attitudes that individual women hold. | (Q) I think it is a good thing for a young wife in my family to be beaten to teach her how to behave properly | Mean score; higher score indicates less gender equitable attitudes | 0.87 | Decrease |
| Married women’s participation in household decision making | Five items are asked about women’s ability to participate in household decisions, based on the WHO Multi-Country Study on Domestic Violence [ | (Q) In the last three months, how often your views been listened to on matters concerning the children and their schooling or work in your home? | Mean score; higher scores indicate more participation | 0.77 | Increase |
| Past year emotional IPV amongst currently married women | Seven items ask about experiences of emotional abuse by the husband. | (Q) In the past 12 months how many times has your husband insulted you or made you feel bad about yourself? | Mean score; higher score indicates more emotional violence | Decrease | |
| Perceptions of husband cruelty amongst currently married women | Five items ask about married women’s perceptions of her husband and his attitudes and relationship towards her. | (Q) My husband is very strict and controlling. | Mean score: higher scores indicate more cruelty | 0.88 | Decrease |
| Mother in law and sibling abuse: | Two items: A single item assesses whether mother-in-laws have hit the woman in the past 12 months and another item assesses whether siblings have hit the woman in the past 12 months, an affirmative response to either item would indicate abuse. | (Q) In the last 12 months were you slapped, hit or beaten by your mother-in-law?. | A positive response to one or both items coded as yes | Decrease | |
| Perceptions of mother-in-law cruelty. | For married women who currently live with their mothers-in-law, six items ask about their relationship and the mother-in-law’s attitudes towards her. | (Q) My mother-in-law can frighten me | Mean score: higher scores indicate more cruelty | 0.84 | Decrease |
Fig. 2Evaluation flowchart
Socio-demographic information by study arm
| All women | Currently married women only | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Intervention | Control | Total | Intervention | Control | |||||||
| mean | (95% CI) | mean | (95% CI) | mean | (95% CI) | mean | (95% CI) | |||||
|
| 1461 | 29.3 | 28.7–29.9 | 29.3 | 28.6–30.0 | 0.99 | 935 | 32.4 | 31.8–33.0 | 32.4 | 31.7–33.1 | 0.97 |
| n | (%) | n | (%) | n | (%) | n | (%) | |||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| Currently married | 935 | 481 | 64.4 | 454 | 63.6 | |||||||
| Previously married | 98 | 48 | 6.4 | 50 | 7.0 | |||||||
| Never married | 428 | 218 | 29.4 | 210 | 29.4 | 0.89 | ||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| None | 1129 | 581 | 77.8 | 548 | 76.8 | 781 | 408 | 84.8 | 373 | 82.2 | ||
| Madrasa | 92 | 52 | 7.0 | 40 | 5.6 | 47 | 25 | 5.2 | 22 | 4.9 | ||
| Primary schooling | 147 | 74 | 10.1 | 73 | 10.2 | 75 | 36 | 7.5 | 39 | 8.6 | ||
| Secondary schooling | 93 | 40 | 6.4 | 53 | 7.4 | 0.31 | 32 | 12 | 2.5 | 20 | 4.4 | 0.38 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| No | 437 | 215 | 28.9 | 222 | 31.1 | 281 | 141 | 29.4 | 140 | 30.9 | ||
| Yes | 1021 | 530 | 71.1 | 491 | 68.9 | 0.34 | 651 | 338 | 70.6 | 313 | 69.1 | 0.63 |