|
Citation
|
Hossain M, Zimmerman C, Kiss L, Abramsky T, Kone D, Bakayoko-Topolska M, Annan J, Lehmann H, Watts CH. BMC Public Health 2014; 14(1): 339. |
|
Abstract
|
BACKGROUND: Evidence from armed conflict settings points to high levels of intimate partner violence (IPV) against women. Current knowledge on how to prevent IPV is limited--especially within war-affected settings. To inform prevention programming on gender-based violence in settings affected by conflict, we evaluated the impact of adding a targeted men's intervention to a community-based prevention programme in Cote d'Ivoire.
METHODS: We conducted a two-armed, non-blinded cluster randomized trial in Cote d'Ivoire among 12 pair-matched communities spanning government-controlled, UN buffer, and rebel-controlled zones. The intervention communities received a 16-week IPV prevention intervention using a men's discussion group format. All communities received community-based prevention programmes. Baseline data was collected from couples in September 2010 (pre-intervention) and follow-up in March 2012 (one year post-intervention). The primary trial outcome was women's reported experiences of physical and/or sexual IPV in the last 12 months. We also assessed men's reported intention to use physical IPV, attitudes towards sexual IPV, use of hostility and conflict management skills, and participation in gendered household tasks. An adjusted cluster-level intention to treat analysis was used to compare outcomes between intervention and control communities at follow-up.
RESULTS: At follow-up, reported levels of physical and/or sexual IPV in the intervention arm had decreased compared to the control arm (ARR 0.52, 95%CI 0.18-1.51, not significant). Men participating in the intervention reported decreased intentions to use physical IPV (ARR 0.83, 95%CI 0.66-1.06) and improved attitudes toward sexual IPV (ARR 1.21, 95%CI 0.77-1.91). Significant differences were found between men in the intervention and control arms' reported ability to control their hostility and manage conflict (ARR 1.3, 95%CI 1.06-1.58), and participation in gendered household tasks (ARR 2.47, 95%CI 1.24-4.90).
CONCLUSIONS: This trial points to the value of adding interventions that work with men alongside community activities to reduce levels of IPV in conflict-affected settings. The intervention significantly impacted on men's reported behaviours related to hostility and conflict management and gender equitable behaviours. The decreased mean level of IPV and the differences between intervention and control arms, while not statistically significant, suggest that IPV in conflict-affected areas can be reduced through concerted efforts to include men directly in violence prevention programming. A larger-scale trial is needed to replicate these findings and further understand the mechanisms of change.Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01803932.
Language: en |