Skip to main content

Table 5 Associations between potential mediators and past year experience (women)/perpetration (men) of physical IPV among respondents partnered in past year

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

  Women - aRRa (95 % CI) for past year experience of IPV Men - aRRa (95 % CI) for past year perpetration of IPV
COMMUNITY LEVEL aRR of IPV for every 10 % change in community-prevalence of mediator aRR of IPV for every 10 % change in community-prevalence of mediator
Community responses to prevent violence:   
  Okay for others in community to intervene if they know IPV is occurring 0.94 (0.79–1.13) 0.88 (0.74–1.04)
  People who have witnessed/heard violence who have responded appropriately 0.98 (0.87–1.10) 0.91 (0.80–1.04)
   Norms around violence:   
  Acceptable for a man to use violence against his partner 1.35 (1.18–1.54) 1.18 (0.99–1.40)
Norms around women’s control over sex:   
  Acceptable for a woman to refuse sex with her partner 0.85 (0.68–1.06) 1.13 (0.90–1.43)
  Okay for a woman to ask her husband to use a condom 0.76 (0.61–0.95) 0.90 (0.74–1.09)
Broader gender norms:   
  Others in community would respect a man who made decisions jointly with his wife 0.79 (0.67–0.94) 0.91 (0.79–1.06)
  Man’s role to decide if his wife can work 1.34 (1.17–1.54) 1.16 (1.00–1.35)
RELATIONSHIP LEVEL (PARTNERED IN PAST YEAR) aRR of IPV in individuals with versus without mediator aRR of IPV in individuals with versus without mediator
Communication:   
  Discuss things that happen in day 0.36 (0.23–0.56) 0.99 (0.58–1.70)
  Discuss worries 0.31 (0.18–0.54) 0.95 (0.63–1.43)
  Discuss what you both like during sex 0.42 (0.28–0.61) 0.67 (0.41–1.08)
  Appreciate work partner does around house 0.44 (0.28–0.69) 0.56 (0.35–0.90)
  Appreciate work partner does outside house 0.46 (0.27–0.80) 0.53 (0.34–0.80)
Power dynamics:   
  Joint decision making 0.27 (0.16–0.47) 0.61 (0.39–0.96)
  Man helps around house 0.63 (0.39–1.03) 0.59 (0.35–0.98)
  Woman refused a job because husband doesn’t want her to work 4.65 (2.59–8.36) 2.78 (1.70–4.56)
  Woman participated in deciding how household finances spent 0.38 (0.25–0.58) 0.84 (0.58–1.23)
Additional sex partners:   
  Concurrent partners 1.93 (0.78–4.77) 2.79 (2.00–3.90)
  Male partner often suspicious that female partner is unfaithful 6.35 (3.73–10.80) 4.51 (3.31–6.13)
Relationship dissolution:   
  Separated/divorced in past year 4.25 (1.49–12.13) 2.13 (0.42–10.88)
INDIVIDUALS (PARTNERED IN PAST YEAR)   
Attitudes around violence:   
  Acceptable for a man to use violence against his partner 2.45 (1.65–3.66) 2.17 (1.43–3.28)
  Okay for a woman to tell others if she is experiencing violence 0.73 (0.49–1.11) 0.52 (0.32–0.85)
Attitudes towards women’s control over sex:   
  Acceptable for a woman to refuse sex with her partner 0.46 (0.30–0.70) 0.92 (0.55–1.56)
  Okay for a woman to ask her husband to use a condom 0.51 (0.34–0.76) 0.85 (0.60–1.19)
Broader gender attitudes:   
  Others in community would respect a man who made decisions jointly with his wife 0..39 (0.24–0.63) 0.60 (0.43–0.83)
  Man’s role to decide if his wife can work 2.25 (1.38–3.69) 1.92 (1.29–2.85)
Behaviours:   
  Drunk at least once a month 1.61 (0.89–2.93) 2.33 (1.82–3.00)
  1. aRisk ratios adjusted for site-pair, intervention arm, age, marital status, education and childhood experiences of abuse