Skip to main content

Table 6 SASA! impact on women’s past year experience/men’s past year perpetration of physical IPV, after adjustment for potential mediators

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

Mediator adjusted for: aRRa (95 % CI) for SASA! impact on women’s experience of IPV % change in aRR after addition of mediator aRRa (95 % CI) for SASA! impact on men’s perpetration of IPV % change in aRR after addition of mediator
n = 875 n = 1108
Model without mediators 0.44 (0.30–0.64) N/A 0.45 (0.30–0.70) N/A
COMMUNITY LEVEL     
Community responses to prevent violence:     
  Okay for others in community to intervene if they know IPV is occurring 0.44 (0.29–0.68) 0 % 0.66 (0.34–1.27) 38 %
  People who have witnessed/heard violence who have responded appropriately 0.43 (0.30–0.63) −2 % 0.52 (0.31–86) 13 %
Norms around violence:     
  Acceptable for a man to use violence against his partner 0.83 (0.50–1.38) 70 % 0.97 (0.40–2.39) 95 %
Norms around women’s control over sex:     
  Acceptable for a woman to refuse sex with her partner 0.57 (0.34–0.96) 23 % 0.41 (0.26–0.64) −7 %
  Okay for a woman to ask her husband to use a condom 0.62 (0.39–0.99) 32 % 0.56 (0.30–1.02) 20 %
Broader gender norms:     
  Others in community would respect a man who made decisions jointly with his wife 0.64 (0.40–1.01) 36 % 0.58(0.34–1.00) 24 %
  Man’s role to decide if his wife can work 0.70 (0.48–1.03) 46 % 0.82 (0.42–1.59) 67 %
RELATIONSHIP LEVEL (PARTNERED IN PAST YEAR)     
Communication:     
  Discuss things that happen in day 0.51 (0.35–0.74) 13 % 0.46 (0.30–0.69) 2 %
  Discuss worries 0.51 (0.36–0.73) 13 % 0.47 (0.31–0.70) 4 %
  Discuss what both like during sex 0.53 (0.36–0.77) 16 % 0.49 (0.32–0.75) 7 %
  Appreciate work partner does around house 0.46 (0.32–0.65) 4 % 0.48 (0.32–0.72) 5 %
  Appreciate work partner does outside house 0.45 (0.31–0.65) 2 % 0.48 (0.32–0.71) 5 %
Power dynamics:     
  Joint decision making 0.52 (0.37–0.74) 14 % 0.49 (0.34–0.72) 7 %
  Man helps around house 0.47 (0.32–0.67) 5 % 0.49 (0.32–0.73) 7 %
  Woman refused a job because husband doesn’t want her to work 0.48 (0.34–0.70) 7 % 0.51 (0.34–0.76) 11 %
  Woman participated in deciding how household finances spent 0.47 (0.34–0.66) 5 % 0.47 (0.32–0.70) 4 %
Additional sex partners:     
  Concurrent partners - - 0.49 (0.34–0.73) 7 %
  Male partner often suspicious that female partner is unfaithful 0.54 (0.38–0.76) 18 % 0.57 (0.40–0.81) 22 %
INDIVIDUALS (PARTNERED IN PAST YEAR)     
Attitudes around violence:     
  Acceptable for a man to use violence against his partner 0.53 (0.36–0.80) 16 % 0.68 (0.43–1.09) 42 %
  Okay for a woman to tell others if she is experiencing violence 0.46 (0.32–0.67) 4 % 0.57 (0.37–0.90) 22 %
Attitudes towards women’s control over sex:     
  Acceptable for a woman to refuse sex with her partner 0.54 (0.37–0.77) 18 % 0.48 (0.31–0.73) 5 %
  Okay for a woman to ask her husband to use a condom 0.51 (0.34–0.76) 13 % 0.47 (0.31–0.72) 4 %
Broader gender attitudes:     
  Others in community would respect a man who made decisions jointly with his wife 0.53 (0.36–0.78) 16 % 0.54 (0.36–0.83) 16 %
  Man’s role to decide if his wife can work 0.51 (0.35–0.72) 13 % 0.58 (0.37–0.90) 24 %
Behaviours:     
  Drunk at least once a month - - 0.47 (0.33–0.69) 4 %
  1. aAdjusted risk ratios calculated using modified poisson regression with cluster robust standard errors, and adjusted for site-pair, age, marital status and EA-level baseline prevalence of IPV