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