000 03491nab a22003617a 4500
999 _c8104
_d8104
005 20250625151634.0
008 230419s2023 ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040 _aAFVC
100 _aChatterji, Sngeeta
_911799
245 _aOptimizing the construction of outcome measures for impact evaluations of intimate partner violence prevention interventions
_cSangeeta Chatterji, Christopher Boyer, Vandana Sharma, Tanya Abramsky, Ruti Levtov, Kate Doyle, Sheila Harvey and Lori Heise
260 _bSage,
_c2023
500 _aJournal of Interpersonal Violence, 2023, First published online, 9 April 2023
520 _aMost impact evaluations of intimate partner violence (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 reanalyzed secondary data from six randomized 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 conceptualizations and coding of IPV variables can influence interpretations of the impact of an intervention. We compared the 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 that the 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. (Authors' abstract). Record #8104
650 _aDOMESTIC VIOLENCE
_9203
650 _aEVALUATION
_9236
650 _aINTERVENTION
_9326
650 _aINTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE
_9431
650 _aPREVENTION
_9458
650 _aPROGRAMME EVALUATION
_9466
651 _aINTERNATIONAL
_93624
651 _aAFRICA
_93364
700 _aBoyer, Christopher
_911800
700 _aSharma, Vandana
_911801
700 _aAbramsky, Tanya
_92669
700 _aLevtov, Ruit
_911802
700 _aDoyle, Kate
_911231
700 _aHarvey, Sheila
_911803
700 _93535
_aHeise, Lori L.
773 0 _tJournal of Interpersonal Violence, 2023, First published online, 9 April 2023
830 _aJournal of Interpersonal Violence
_94621
856 _uhttps://doi.org/10.1177/08862605231162887
_zDOI: 10.1177/08862605231162887 (Open access)
942 _2ddc
_cARTICLE
_hnews119