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