Randomized Controlled Trials of Interventions Addressing Intimate Partner Violence in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review. (October 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cork, Cliodhna; White, Ross; Noel, Pia; Bergin, Niamh
• Is Part Of: Trauma, violence & abuse. Volume 21:Number 4(2020)
• Page Start: 643
• Page End: 659
• Publication Date: 2020-10
• Subjects: domestic violence and cultural contexts -- domestic violence -- intervention/treatment -- anything related to domestic violence -- cultural contexts; Child abuse -- Periodicals; Post-traumatic stress disorder in children -- Periodicals; Violence -- Periodicals; Family violence -- Periodicals; Violence envers les enfants -- Périodiques; Violence familiale -- Périodiques; Névroses post-traumatiques -- Périodiques; 616.8521
• DOI: 10.1177/1524838018784585
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1524-8380

Abstract

Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrated by males is the most prevalent form of violence against women across the globe. A systematic review was carried out to identify published randomized controlled trials of interventions aiming to prevent or reduce IPV in Sub-Saharan Africa. Details were sought on the interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias in evaluations. Methods: Articles were identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycInfo. The search included terms pertaining to IPV, the research design, and the target geographical region. To be included, studies needed to have assessed the impact of an intervention on reported incidence, prevalence of IPV, or measures of related attitudes and behaviors. Fifteen papers were included in the final review. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Library "Risk of Bias" tool. Results: Findings suggest that interventions have the potential to reduce IPV-related behaviors and attitudes. Certain types of IPV were more amenable to change than others. Higher levels of efficacy were identified in interventions that had longer follow-up, addressed IPV as a main aim, and occurred at the community level or multiple levels of the social ecology. Conclusions: Findings should be interpreted in light of varying risks of bias. Suggestions are made for future research and practice.