Abstract
Most impact evaluations of IPV prevention interventions use binary measures of “any” versus “no” physical and/or sexual IPV as their primary outcome measure, missing opportunities to capture nuance. In this study, we reanalysed secondary data from six randomised controlled trials conducted in low and middle-income countries- Bandebereho (Rwanda), Becoming One (Uganda), Indashyikirwa (Rwanda), MAISHA CRT01, MAISHA CRT02 (Tanzania), Stepping Stones Creating Futures (South Africa), and Unite for a Better Life (Ethiopia), to assess how different conceptualisations and coding of IPV variables can influence interpretations of the impact of an intervention. We compared standard outcome measures to new measures that reflect the severity and intensity of violence and whether interventions prevent new cases of IPV or reduce or stop ongoing violence. Results indicate that traditional binary indicators masked some of the more subtle intervention effects, and the use of the new indicators allowed for a better understanding of the impacts of the interventions. Conclusions on whether a program is perceived “to work” are highly influenced by the IPV outcomes investigators choose to report and how they are measured and coded. Lack of attention to outcome choice and measurement could lead to prematurely abandoning strategies useful for violence reduction or missing essential insights into how programs may or may not affect IPV. While these results must be interpreted cautiously, given differences in intervention types, the underlying prevalence of violence, sociodemographic factors, sample sizes and other contextual differences across the trial sites, they can help us move toward a new approach to reporting multiple outcomes that allow us to unpack the ‘impact’ of an intervention by assessing intervention effect by the severity of violence and type of prevention, whether primary and secondary.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by a SVRI World bank Marketplace Innovation grant.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Bandebereho study received ethical approval from the Rwanda National Health Research Committee, the Rwanda National Ethics Committee, and the Rwandan National Institute of Statistics (Doyle et al., 2018). Ethical approval for the Becoming One study was obtained from Innovations for Poverty Action, the Mildmay Uganda Research and Ethics Committee, and the Ugandan National Council for Science and Technology (Boyer et al., 2022). Ethical approval for the Indashyikirwa study was obtained from the Rwandan National Ethics Committee, the National Institute of Statistics Rwanda and the South Africa Medical Research Council (Dunkle et al., 2020). MAISHA CRT01 and MAISHA CRT02 obtained ethical approval from the Tanzanian National Health Research Ethics Committee of the National Institute for Medical Research and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine ethics committee (Harvey et al., 2021). Approval to undertake the SS-CF trial was granted by the ethics committees of the University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa and the South African Medical Research Council Ethics Committee (Gibbs et al., 2020). Approval to conduct the UBL trial was sought from the Committee on the Use of Humans as Experimental Subjects at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the IRB board at the Addis Ababa University College of Health Sciences (Sharma et al., 2020).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors. Please note that this manuscript presents secondary analysis of data from six trials.
