Skip to main content

Table 4 Estimates of intervention effect on potential mediators among men, comparing outcome in intervention versus control communities

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

  Baseline Follow-up  
  Intervention Control Intervention Control aRRa (95 % CI)
COMMUNITY LEVELb EA-level mean risk % (sd) n = 16 EA-level mean risk % (sd) n = 16 Mean difference (95 % CI) EA-level mean risk % (sd) n = 24 Mean difference (95 % CI)
Community responses to prevent violence:      
  Okay for others in community to intervene if they know IPV is occurring - - 92.5 (6.6) 42.8 (11.9) 47.6 (21.9–73.3)
  People who have witnessed/heard violence who have responded appropriately - - 62.8 (15.1) 26.1 (10.7) 33.3 (−4.0–70.6)
Norms around violence:      
  Acceptable for a man to use violence against his partner 27.7 (17.2) 25.2 (15.8) 7.3 (5.8) 85.6 (6.6) −75.5 (−92.4– −58.7)
Norms around women’s control over sex:      
  Acceptable for a woman to refuse sex with her partner 53.5 (18.3) 55.6 (14.0) 97.5 (2.6) 75.4 (12.9) 23.0 (1.0–45.0)
  Okay for a woman to ask her husband to use a condom - - 88.6 (12.2) 43.6 (8.8) 41.8 (17.8–65.8)
Broader gender norms:      
  Others in community would respect a man who made decisions jointly with his wife - - 88.9 (10.5) 38.9 (10.9) 48.3 (29.7–66.9)
  Man’s role to decide if his wife can work - - 14.8 (10.6) 83.6 (5.4) −67.0 (−82.1– −51.9)
RELATIONSHIP LEVEL (PARTNERED IN PAST YEAR) n/N (%) n/N (%) n/N (%) n/N (%) aRR (95 % CI)
Communication:      
  Discuss things that happen in day 275/313 (88 %) 292/335 (87 %) 523/545 (96 %) 318/434 (73 %) 1.30 (0.98–1.72)
  Discuss worries 270/313 (86 %) 294/335 (88 %) 525/545 (96 %) 326/434 (75 %) 1.28 (1.00–1.64)
  Discuss what you both like during sex - - 481/544 (88 %) 226/434 (52 %) 1.70 (1.22–2.37)
  Appreciate work partner does around house - - 385/409 (94 %) 231/326 (71 %) 1.32 (1.04–1.69)
  Appreciate work partner does outside house - - 228/283 (81 %) 128/244 (52 %) 1.61 (1.04–2.50)
Power dynamics:      
  Joint decision making 208/234 (89 %) 229/262 (87 %) 378/443 (85 %) 165/356 (46 %) 1.90 (1.28–2.80)
  Man helps around house 180/304 (59 %) 214/330 (65 %) 396/411 (96 %) 229/326 (70 %) 1.42 (0.98–2.05)
  Woman refused a job because husband doesn’t want her to work 26/313 (8 %) 26/335 (8 %) 27/506 (5 %) 123/410 (30 %) 0.12 (0.02–0.89)
  Woman participated in deciding how household finances spent 234/306 (76 %)* 271/327 (83 %)* 416/449 (93 %) 218/345 (63 %) 1.48 (1.11–1.97)
Additional sex partners:      
  Concurrent partners 109/270 (40 %) 105/284 (37 %) 139/508 (27 %) 177/397 (45 %) 0.60 (0.37–0.97)
  Male partner often suspicious that female partner is unfaithful - - 76/620 (12 %) 221/525 (42 %) 0.19 (0.02–1.60)
Relationship dissolution:      
  Separated/divorced in past year 3/307 (1 %) 5/330 (2 %) 7/545 (1 %) 12/435 (3 %) 0.52 (0.15–1.83)
INDIVIDUALS (PARTNERED IN PAST YEAR)      
Attitudes around violence:      
  Acceptable for a man to use violence against his partner 81/313 (26 %) 83/335 (25 %) 119/624 (19 %) 454/525 (86 %) 0.14 (0.02–1.11)
  Okay for a woman to tell others if she is experiencing violence - - 571/624 (92 %) 221/525 (42 %) 2.24 (1.39–3.61)
Attitudes towards women’s control over sex:      
  Acceptable for a woman to refuse sex with her partner 164/313 (52 %) 184/335 (55 %) 608/624 (97 %) 400/525 (76 %) 1.30 (0.96–1.78)
  Okay for a woman to ask her husband to use a condom - - 536/624 (86 %) 245/525 (47 %) 1.86 (1.28–2.70)
Broader gender attitudes:      
  Others in community would respect a man who made decisions jointly with his wife - - 541/624 (87 %) 202/525 (38 %) 2.27 (1.53–3.36)
  Man’s role to decide if his wife can work - - 192/624 (31 %) 448/525 (85 %) 0.27 (0.06–1.25)
Behaviours:      
  Drunk at least once a month 92/311 (30 %) 110/329 (33 %) 162/619 (26 %) 200/525 (38 %) 0.69 (0.38–1.27)
  Woman experiencing (man perpetrating) violence who has told someone 39/105 (37 %) 50/116 (43 %) 101/181 (56 %) 172/452 (38 %) 1.50 (0.80–2.83)
  1. aRisk ratios calculated at the cluster-level, adjusted for community-pair, and weighted according to the number of observations per village. Adjusted risk ratios generated on the basis of expected number of events from a logistic regression model on individual data with independent variables including age and marital status
  2. b Mean number of respondents per EA = 28.0 (range 18–35)
  3. *χ2 p-value <0.005