Background: Understanding the drivers of intimate partner violence (IPV), perpetrated by men and experienced by women, is a critical task for developing effective prevention programmes. Objectives: To provide a comprehensive assessment of the drivers of IPV. Methods: A comprehensive review of the drivers of IPV, at the end of a six-year programme of research through the What Works to Prevent Violence Against Women and Girls Global Programme with reference to other important research in the field. Results: Broadly, we argue that IPV is driven by poverty, patriarchal privilege, and the normative use of violence in interpersonal relationships. These factors also increase childhood trauma, poor mental health and substance misuse, and poor communication and conflict in relationships, which in turn impact on IPV. Disability status, and contexts of armed conflict, or post-conflict, further reinforce and exacerbate these risks. We move beyond describing associations towards describing the causal pathways through which these factors operate to increase IPV. Conclusions: Specific recommendations about the future of further research on drivers of IPV include a greater focus on understanding the causal pathways from drivers to IPV and clearly delineating association from causality in studies, particularly for women and girls with disabilities, in armed conflicts, and adolescent girls and young women. To achieve this, we recommend extensive in-depth qualitative research, and complex quantitative modeling studies. Understanding drivers and causal pathways better will enable the identification of points of entry for the development of more effective IPV prevention interventions.

Several countries, including India, imposed mandatory social distancing, quarantine, and lockdowns to stop the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Although these measures were effective in curbing the spread of the virus, prolonged social distancing, quarantine, and the resultant economic disruption led to an increase in financial stress and mental health concerns. Prior studies established a link between the first lockdown and an increase in mental health issues. However, few studies investigated the association between post-lockdown financial hardship, job loss, and mental health. In this study, we examined the association between COVID-19-related financial hardship, job loss, and mental health symptoms approximately nine months after the end of the first nationwide lockdown in India. Job loss was associated with higher reporting of mental health symptoms among men (aIRR = 1.16) while financial hardship was associated with poor mental health symptoms among women (aIRR = 1.29). Conversely, social support and government aid were associated with better mental health symptoms among women. Our findings highlight the need for financial assistance and job creation programs to aid families in the recovery process. There is also an urgent need for improving the availability and affordability of mental health services in rural areas.

There is considerable interest in community organising and activism as a strategy to shift patriarchal gender norms, attitudes and beliefs and thus reduce intimate partner violence (IPV). Yet there is limited insight into how activism actually translates into reduced violence, including how aspects of programme implementation or cultural context may affect impact. This study evaluates the community activism/mobilisation portion of Indashyikirwa, a multi-component, IPV prevention programme implemented in rural Rwanda. The activism part of Indashyikirwa was based on SASA!, a promising program model from Uganda with demonstrated effectiveness. We implemented two separate cross-sectional surveys as part of a larger community randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of the community portion of Indashyikirwa on preventing physical and/or sexual IPV and other secondary outcomes at a community level. The survey consisted of a random household-based sample of 1400 women and 1400 men at both waves. Surveys were conducted before community-level activities commenced and were repeated 24 months later with a new cross-sectional sample. Longitudinal, qualitative data were collected as part of an embedded process evaluation. There was no evidence of an intervention effect at a community level on any of the trial's primary or secondary outcomes, most notably women's experience of physical and/or sexual IPV from a current male partner in the past 12 months (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.25; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.92-1.70, P = 0.16), or men's perpetration of male-to-female physical and/or sexual IPV (aOR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.72-1.45, P = 0.89). Process evaluation data suggest that delays due to challenges in adapting and implementing SASA!-style activites in rural Rwanda may account for the trial's failure to measure an effect. Additionally, the intervention strategy of informal activism was not well suited to the Rwandan context and required considerable modification. Failure to reduce violence when implementing an adaptation of SASA! in rural Rwanda highlights the importance of allowing sufficient time for adapting evidence-based programming (EBP) to ensure cultural appropriateness and fidelity. This evaluation held little chance of demonstrating impact since the project timeline forced endline evaluation only months after certain elements of the programme became operational. Donors must anticipate longer time horizons (5 to 7 years) when contemplating evaluations of novel or newly-adapted programmess for reducing IPV at a population level. These findings also reinforce the value of including embedded process evaluations when investing in rigorous trials of complex phenomena such as community activism. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03477877.

Most 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.