We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article


Abramsky T, Devries KM, Michau L, Nakuti J, Musuya T, Kiss L, Kyegombe N, Watts C. BMC Public Health 2016; 16(1): e339.


Gender Violence and Health Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.


(Copyright © 2016, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group - BMC)








BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women is a global public health concern. While community-level gender norms and attitudes to IPV are recognised drivers of IPV risk, there is little evidence on how interventions might tackle these drivers to prevent IPV at the community-level. This secondary analysis of data from the SASA! study explores the pathways through which SASA!, a community mobilisation intervention to prevent violence against women, achieved community-wide reductions in physical IPV.

METHODS: From 2007 to 2012 a cluster randomised controlled trial (CRT) was conducted in eight communities in Kampala, Uganda. Cross-sectional surveys of a random sample of community members, aged 18-49, were undertaken at baseline (n = 1583) and 4 years post intervention implementation (n = 2532). We used cluster-level intention to treat analysis to estimate SASA!'s community-level impact on women's past year experience of physical IPV and men's past year perpetration of IPV. The mediating roles of community-, relationship- and individual-level factors in intervention effect on past year physical IPV experience (women)/perpetration (men) were explored using modified Poisson regression models.

RESULTS: SASA! was associated with reductions in women's past year experience of physical IPV (0.48, 95 % CI 0.16-1.39), as well as men's perpetration of IPV (0.39, 95 % CI 0.20-0.73). Community-level normative attitudes were the most important mediators of intervention impact on physical IPV risk, with norms around the acceptability of IPV explaining 70 % of the intervention effect on women's experience of IPV and 95 % of the effect on men's perpetration. The strongest relationship-level mediators were men's reduced suspicion of partner infidelity (explaining 22 % of effect on men's perpetration), and improved communication around sex (explaining 16 % of effect on women's experience). Reduced acceptability of IPV among men was the most important individual-level mediator (explaining 42 % of effect on men's perpetration).

CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the important role of community-level norm-change in achieving community-wide reductions in IPV risk. They lend strong support for the more widespread adoption of community-level approaches to preventing violence. TRIAL REGISTRATION:, NCT00790959. Registered 13th November 2008. The study protocol is available at:

Language: en


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley