Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Study effects for economic and social outcomes

From: Systematic review of structural interventions for intimate partner violence in low- and middle-income countries: organizing evidence for prevention

First author (year) Economic Social
  Economic wellbeing Help seeking or receipt Attitudes toward IPV Gender norms Other social pathways1
Abramsky (2014) [6]   NS2    
Ahmed (2005) [24]      
Bobonis (2013) [25]      
Das (2012) [26]     * / NS3  
Green (2015) [27] Trial 1 *    NS * / NS4
Trial 2 NS    NS * / NS5
Gupta (2013) [28]    * NS  
Hidrobo (2013) [29]      
Hossain (2014) [30]    NS   *
Jewkes (2008) [31]      
Jewkes (2014) [32] * / NS6    * * / NS7
Kim (2007) [33] * / NS8   NS   * / NS9
Kim (2009) [34] * / NS10   * / NS11   * / NS12
Kyegombe (2014) [35]      * / NS13,14
Miller (2014) [36]    NS *  
Pronyk (2006) [37] * / NS15   NS   * / NS16
Pronyk (2008) [38]      NS
Pulerwitz (2015) [39]     *  
Pulerwitz (2015) [40]     * / NS17  
Usdin (2005) [41]   * * / NS18   *
Wagman (2015) [42]      
  1. *Significant at p < 0.05 or 95 % confidence interval not including unity
  2. NS not significant
  3. 1Other social pathways include a range of author-defined outcomes, including indicators for relationship quality, empowerment, social capital, and collective action
  4. 2Limited to appropriate community response to women experiencing IPV in past year, as indicators measuring acceptability of physical violence by a man against his partner and acceptability of a woman refusing sex changed from baseline to follow-up
  5. 3Measured as 8 scales for activist v. control (women’s role/autonomy*, gender roles*, domestic work*, masculinity*, sexuality*, knowledge of women/child laws*, women do “traditional women’s work”*, men do “traditional male work”*) and influenced v. control (women’s role/autonomy*, gender roles*, domestic work*, masculinity*, sexuality*, knowledge of women/child laws, women do “traditional women’s work”*, men do “traditional male work”*)
  6. 4Measured as 2 indicators for men and women (self-reported autonomy/influence in purchases, partner relationship index*) and women only (self-reported autonomy/influence in purchases, partner relationship index*)
  7. 5Measured as 5 indicators for women only (self-reported autonomy/influence in purchases, partner relationship index*, partner support index overall*, partner support index: family*, partner support index: business)
  8. 6Measured as 12 indicators for women (mean earnings last month*, currently studying, frequency of livelihood strengthening efforts, work stress, feelings about work situation mean score*, financially supporting kids*, receiving a grant*, hungry every day or week, borrowing food or money weekly or more often, stole in last month due to lack of food or money*, crime participation score, very difficult to find 200 rand in an emergency*) and men (mean earnings last month*, currently studying, frequency of livelihood strengthening efforts*, work stress*, feelings about work situation mean score*, financially supporting kids, receiving a grant, hungry every day or week, borrowing food or money weekly or more often, stole in last month due to lack of food or money*, crime participation score, very difficult to find 200 rand in an emergency*)
  9. 7Measured as 4 indicators for women (relationship control scale, any club or group involvement*, active in church, community cohesion score) and men (relationship control scale*, any club or group involvement, active in church, community cohesion score)
  10. 8Measured as 3 indicators (estimated household asset value >2000 rand*, expenditure on shoes and clothing >200 rand/year, savings group membership)
  11. 9Measured as 9 indicators (more self-confidence, greater financial confidence, challenging gender norms, autonomy in decision-making, perceived contribution to household valued by partner, household communication regarding sexual matters in the past year*, supportive partner relationship, greater social group membership, takes part in collective action)
  12. 10Measured as 9 indicators for microfinance v. control (greater food security, household asset value > US$300*, greater expenditure on home improvements, better able to pay back debt*, membership in savings group*, able to meet basic needs in past year*, possesses bank account, better perception of household economic well-being, has not had to beg in past month*), IMAGE v. control (greater food security, household asset value > US$300, greater expenditure on home improvements*, better able to pay back debt, membership in savings group, able to meet basic needs in past year, possesses bank account, better perception of household economic well-being, has not had to beg in past month), and IMAGE v. microfinance (greater food security, household asset value > US$300, greater expenditure on home improvements, better able to pay back debt, membership in savings group, able to meet basic needs in past year, possesses bank account, better perception of household economic well-being, has not had to beg in past month)
  13. 11Significant for IMAGE v. microfinance*, not significant for microfinance v. control or IMAGE v. control
  14. 12Measured as 9 indicators for microfinance v. control (greater self-confidence*, greater financial confidence, challenges gender norms, supportive partner relationship, autonomy in decision-making, perceived contribution to household, larger social network, greater sense of community support, greater solidarity in crisis), IMAGE v. control (greater self-confidence, greater financial confidence, challenges gender norms, supportive partner relationship, autonomy in decision-making, perceived contribution to household*, larger social network, greater sense of community support, greater solidarity in crisis), and IMAGE v. microfinance (greater self-confidence*, greater financial confidence, challenges gender norms, supportive partner relationship*, autonomy in decision-making, perceived contribution to household*, larger social network, greater sense of community support, greater solidarity in crisis*)
  15. 13Measured as 11 indicators for women (feels able to refuse sex with partner, made important decisions jointly with partner all/most of the time*, male partner helps with housework, male partner helps look after children, shown appreciation many times for work partner does in the house, shown appreciation many times for work partner does outside the house, discussed number of children you would like to have, openly asked what partner likes during sex, openly told partner what you like during sex, discussed things that happen to both you and partner during the day, discussed your worries/feelings) and 10 indicators for men (made important decisions jointly with partner all/most of the time*, male partner helps with housework*, male partner helps look after children*, shown appreciation many times for work partner does in the house*, shown appreciation many times for work partner does outside the house*, discussed number of children you would like to have*, openly asked what partner likes during sex*, openly told partner what you like during sex*, discussed things that happen to both you and partner during the day, discussed your worries/feelings*)
  16. 14The authors indicate that “question wording/item construction changed between baseline and follow-up to improve face validity” (p. 6), yet it is unclear which indicators changed from the information reported [35]. All potentially relevant measures are included
  17. 15Measured as 5 indicators (estimated value of selected household assets >2000 rand*, membership in savings group, greater food security, per person expenditure on clothing or shoes >200 rand, children aged 10–19 years attending school)
  18. 16Measured as 9 indicators (more participation in social groups, taken part in collective action, greater perception of community support in a time of crisis, belief that the community would work together toward common goals, more positive attitude to communal ownership, more self-confidence, greater challenge of established gender roles, communication with intimate partner about sexual matters in past 12 months, communication with household members about sexual matters in past 12 months*)
  19. 17Significant for GE + CE v. CE and control*, not significant for CE v. control
  20. 18Measured as difference between baseline and follow-up for 10 indicators defined as “personal attitudes” and “subjective norms” (I agree that domestic violence is a serious problem*, I disagree that violence between a man and a woman is a private affair*, I agree that no woman ever deserves to be beaten*, I disagree that women who are abused are expected to put up with it*, I disagree that in my culture it is acceptable for a man to beat his wife, I disagree, as head of the household, a man has the right to beat a woman, my community agrees that domestic violence is a serious problem*, my community disagrees that violence between a man and a woman is a private affair*, my family agrees that no woman ever deserves to be beaten*, my family disagrees that women who are abused are expected to put up with it*) and by level of media exposure at follow-up (I agree that domestic violence is a serious problem*, I disagree that violence between a man and a woman is a private affair*, I agree that no women ever deserves to be beaten*, I disagree that women who are abused are expected to put up with it*, I disagree that in my culture it is acceptable for a man to beat his wife*, I disagree, as head of the household, a man has the right to beat a woman*, my community agrees that domestic violence is a serious problem, my community disagrees that violence between a man and a woman is a private affair*, my family agrees that no woman ever deserves to be beaten*, my family disagrees that women who are abused are expected to put up with it*)