Skip to main content

Table 4 Changes to risk, incidence and key effects of included studies

From: The impact of interventions to reduce risk and incidence of intimate partner violence and sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict states and other humanitarian crises in low and middle income countries: a systematic review

Author (s) Change to incidence Change to risk Violence and context Indicators for reduced risk Key impacts
Personnel
 Bacon [48] Not applicable (NA) IPV
PostC
Gender specific recruitment implemented
Implementation/impacts of codes of conduct/training
Increased GBV reporting to police. Enhanced awareness of and response to GBV. Gaps include capacity building and training, and officer attrition. Few cases proceeded to court. Weak justice system reduced effectiveness
Community mobilisation
 Gurman et al. [45] NA SV + IPV
PostC
∙∙Awareness of rights by community
∙∙Willingness to use reporting mechanisms
Changes in family gender dynamics. Improved communication within the family. Women suggested reduced violence + greater freedom. Males reported increased knowledge about GBV + changed behaviour. Reports of persisting culture of silence
Social norms
 Glass et al. [44] NA SV + IPV
PostC
∙∙Changed norms on acceptability of VAW
∙∙Acceptability of services/reporting mechanism
Male and female participants showed significant positive change to social norms on all 3 subscales: blame for SV (b = − 0.214, p = 0.041); protecting family honour(b = − 0.558, p < 0.001); husband’s right to use violence (b = − 0.309, p = 0.003)
 Hossain et al. [51]
Not significant (NS)*
SV + IPV
C
∙∙Changed norms supporting women’s equality
∙∙Changed norms on acceptability of VAW
∙ Men show reduced acceptance of VAW
At 12 months reduced SV + IPV (aRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.18–1.51 (NS). Also NS reports by men of reduced intention re physical IPV (aRR 0.83, 95%CI 0.66–1.06) and increase in support for women’s right to refuse sex (aRR 1.21, 95%CI 0.77–1.91). Men’s reported involvement in household tasks (aRR 2.47,95% CI 1.24–4.90) and ability to control hostility increased (aRR 1.3,95% CI 1.06–1.58)
 Vaillant et al. [50] ↓NS IPV
PostC
∙∙Changed norms supporting women’s equality
∙∙Men show reduced acceptance of VAW
At 12 months NS differences in IPV (aOR = 0.95; SE = 0.14; p = 0.71) but women perceived reduced ‘negative male behaviour’ (β =  − 0.32; p < 0.01). Males reported decreased agreement with wife beating. (OR = 0.59; SE = 0.08; p < 0.01) + increased agreement with right to refuse sex (OR = 1.47; SE = 0.24; p < 0.05)
Economic empowerment
 Glass et al. 2017 [46] ↓ (NS) IPV
PostC
∙∙Increased economic autonomy
∙∙Household poverty reduced
∙∙Improved survivor wellbeing/mental health
At 18 months reduced psychological abuse (p = 0.80) (NS), increased livestock/animal assets (p = 0.00004) + reduced debt (p = 0.028) + improved subjective health (p = 0.035), anxiety (p = 0.023) and PTSD (p = 0.0004)
 Koegler et al. 2019 [47] NA SV
C
∙∙Increased economic autonomy Women described improved mental health and increased connection and security from shared farming and improved relationships in the community
ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT + SOCIAL NORMS
 Annan et al. [42] Not reported (NR) IPV
C
∙∙Increased economic autonomy
∙∙Changed norms supporting women’s equality
Gender dialogue group plus group savings—significantly less likely to meet PTSD criteria than group savings alone (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40–0.93; p = 0.02) but non-significant among partnered women who had experienced IPV at baseline (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.29–1.82; p = 0.5)
 Falb et al. 2014 [41] NA IPV
C
∙∙Changed norms supporting women’s equality
∙∙Changed norms on acceptability of VAW
Most male participants were positive about women’s participation in group savings with financial benefits as primary motive. Participants described increased joint decision making, reduced arguments and “violent problem solving.”
 Gibbs et al. [52] ↓ (sub-group) IPV ∙∙Increased economic autonomy
∙∙Household poverty reduced
∙∙Changed norms supporting women’s equality
Women with moderate food insecurity at baseline showed decreased past year physical IPV and severe physical IPV. For all, higher mean earnings and savings at the end of the program. Increased female autonomy and economic empowerment beneficial but limited impact due to extreme poverty and patriarchal social norms
 Green et al. [49] ↓ (NS) IPV
Post-C
∙∙Increased economic autonomy
∙∙Changed norms supporting women’s equality
Inclusion of partner had little impact on economic outcomes compared to economic empowerment only.Small decline in marital control (β = 0.07; 95% CI 0.26–0.12) and physical/emotional abuse (β = 0.08; 95%CI 0.2–0.04). Greater acceptance by women of positive gender norms but not -wives can disagree with partner/hold financial autonomy
Gupta et al. [40] ↓(NS) IPV
C
∙∙Increased economic autonomy
∙∙Changed norms support women’s equality
∙∙Changed norms on acceptability of VAW
Addition of gender dialogue groups to group savings led to slightly lower odds (NS) of physical/sexual IPV (OR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.58, 1.47, p = .72) but significantly reduced economic abuse 0.39 (0.25, 0.60, p =  < 0.0001). Acceptance of wife beating significantly reduced, no change in attitudes towards refusing sex with partner
EMPOWERMENT + RELATIONSHIP SKILLS
Stark Asghar
2018 [55]
No change (NC) SV + IPV
PostC
∙∙Increased sense of safety in community No significant reduction to SV (aOR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.57) at 12 mo/ or other violence/ perceived safety but significantly more likely to support schooling, delayed marriage/childbirth + self-reported social support systems
Stark Seff [56] NC SV + IPV
C + PostC
∙∙Increased knowledge of rights and access to services No significant reduction to SV (OR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.37) or other violence; caregivers increased warmth and affection to daughters—no change to gender norms
Survivor response
 Bass et al. 2013 [43] NA SV
C
∙∙Improved survivor wellbeing/mental health At 6 months significantly reduced PTSD (RR 5.5,95% CI: 2.5–13.2 p =  < 0.001) and depression/anxiety (RR 4.6; 95% CI 2.1–11.1) compared to individual support
Vu et al. 2017 [57] NA SV + IPV
PostC
∙∙Awareness of and willingness to use services/reporting mechanisms GBV screening and referral supports: GBV disclosure; women-centred care; GBV knowledge and services in the community; and changing norms of stigma and discrimination against the survivor
Survivor response + community mobilisation
 Hossain et al. [39] NR SV + IPV
PostC
∙∙Improved survivor wellbeing/mental health
Increased sense of safety in community
∙∙Awareness of services/reporting mechanism
No significant changes were noted in perceived safety, coping, physical health, or hope. Repeat surveys indicated improved mental health but not able to be attributed to case management process. Women with the greatest psychological impacts accessed services more frequently
Lilleston et al. [54] NA SV + IPV
PostC
∙∙Awareness of rights by community
∙∙Improved survivor wellbeing/mental health
Reported impacts of service use included social connectedness, social opportunities, social support, strengthened family bonds, reduced distress and knowledge and skills
  1. Italicised rows denote qualitative studies: NA = Not applicable; NC = No change; NS = Non significant, NR = Not reported