Citation

Chatterji S, Heise L, Gibbs A, Dunkle K. SSM Popul. Health 2020; 11: e100635.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2020, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.ssmph.2020.100635

PMID

32802931 PMCID

Abstract

Currently, most efforts to evaluate programmes designed to reduce intimate partner violence (IPV) assume that they affect all people similarly. Understanding whether interventions are more or less effective for different subgroups of individuals, however, can yield important insights for programming. In this study, we conducted subgroup analyses to assess whether treatment effects vary by baseline reporting of IPV experience among women or perpetration among men.

RESULTS indicated that for both men and women, the Indashyikirwa intervention in Rwanda was more successful at reducing or stopping ongoing IPV than it was at preventing its onset. The SS-CF intervention in South Africa, by contrast, was more successful at preventing men from starting to perpetrate IPV than it was in reducing the intensity of men's perpetration or stopping it entirely. These results indicate that the prevention field needs to better understand the extent to which IPV interventions may have differential impacts on primary versus secondary prevention. It also emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between intervention strategies that prevent the onset of IPV versus those that reduce or stop ongoing IPV.

Language: en

Keywords

Measurement; South Africa; Intimate partner violence; Secondary prevention; Primary prevention; Rwanda