• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

乌干达坎帕拉减少亲密伴侣暴力的社区动员干预措施的成本及成本效益分析。

Cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of a community mobilisation intervention to reduce intimate partner violence in Kampala, Uganda.

作者信息

Michaels-Igbokwe Christine, Abramsky Tanya, Devries Karen, Michau Lori, Musuya Tina, Watts Charlotte

机构信息

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

出版信息

BMC Public Health. 2016 Feb 29;16:196. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-2883-6.

DOI:10.1186/s12889-016-2883-6
PMID:26924488
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4770522/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Intimate partner violence (IPV) poses a major public health concern. To date there are few rigorous economic evaluations of interventions aimed at preventing IPV in low-income settings. This study provides a cost and cost effectiveness analysis of SASA!, a community mobilisation intervention to change social norms and prevent IPV.

METHODS

An economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial. Both financial and economic costs were collected retrospectively from the provider's perspective to generate total and unit cost estimates over four years of intervention programming. Univariate sensitivity analysis is conducted to estimate the impact of uncertainty in cost and outcome measures on results.

RESULTS

The total cost of developing the SASA! Activist Kit is estimated as US$138,598. Total intervention costs over four years are estimated as US$553,252. The annual cost of supporting 351 activists to conduct SASA! activities was approximately US$389 per activist and the average cost per person reached in intervention communities was US$21 over the full course of the intervention, or US$5 annually. The primary trial outcome was past year experience of physical IPV with an estimated 1201 cases averted (90% CI: 97-2307 cases averted). The estimated cost per case of past year IPV averted was US$460.

CONCLUSION

This study provides the first economic evaluation of a community mobilisation intervention aimed at preventing IPV. SASA! unit costs compare favourably with gender transformative interventions and support services for survivors of IPV.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT00790959.

摘要

背景

亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)是一个重大的公共卫生问题。迄今为止,针对低收入环境中预防IPV干预措施的严格经济评估很少。本研究对SASA!进行了成本和成本效益分析,这是一项旨在改变社会规范和预防IPV的社区动员干预措施。

方法

在一项整群随机对照试验的同时进行经济评估。从提供者的角度回顾性收集财务和经济成本,以得出四年干预规划期间的总成本和单位成本估计值。进行单变量敏感性分析,以估计成本和结果测量中的不确定性对结果的影响。

结果

开发SASA!活动家工具包的总成本估计为138,598美元。四年的总干预成本估计为553,252美元。支持351名活动家开展SASA!活动的年度成本约为每名活动家389美元,在干预社区中每人在整个干预过程中的平均成本为21美元,即每年5美元。主要试验结果是过去一年遭受身体IPV的经历,估计避免了1201例(90%CI:避免97 - 2307例)。过去一年避免的每例IPV估计成本为460美元。

结论

本研究首次对旨在预防IPV的社区动员干预措施进行了经济评估。SASA!的单位成本与性别变革性干预措施以及IPV幸存者支持服务相比具有优势。

试验注册

ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT00790959。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e0a/4770522/23779bd6a174/12889_2016_2883_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e0a/4770522/23779bd6a174/12889_2016_2883_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e0a/4770522/23779bd6a174/12889_2016_2883_Fig1_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of a community mobilisation intervention to reduce intimate partner violence in Kampala, Uganda.乌干达坎帕拉减少亲密伴侣暴力的社区动员干预措施的成本及成本效益分析。
BMC Public Health. 2016 Feb 29;16:196. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-2883-6.
2
Ecological pathways to prevention: How does the SASA! community mobilisation model work to prevent physical intimate partner violence against women?预防的生态途径:“SASA!”社区动员模式如何预防针对妇女的亲密伴侣身体暴力?
BMC Public Health. 2016 Apr 16;16:339. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3018-9.
3
Examining diffusion to understand the how of SASA!, a violence against women and HIV prevention intervention in Uganda.研究扩散情况,了解 SASA! 如何预防乌干达的暴力侵害妇女和艾滋病毒。
BMC Public Health. 2018 May 11;18(1):616. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5508-4.
4
Cost-effectiveness analysis of an intimate partner violence prevention intervention targeting men, women and couples in rural Ethiopia: evidence from the Unite for a Better Life randomised controlled trial.针对埃塞俄比亚农村地区男性、女性和夫妻的亲密伴侣暴力预防干预措施的成本效益分析:来自“为美好生活而团结”随机对照试验的证据。
BMJ Open. 2021 Mar 29;11(3):e042365. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042365.
5
The impact of SASA!, a community mobilisation intervention, on women's experiences of intimate partner violence: secondary findings from a cluster randomised trial in Kampala, Uganda.社区动员干预措施“SASA!”对女性亲密伴侣暴力经历的影响:乌干达坎帕拉一项整群随机试验的次要结果
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016 Aug;70(8):818-25. doi: 10.1136/jech-2015-206665. Epub 2016 Feb 12.
6
'SASA! is the medicine that treats violence'. Qualitative findings on how a community mobilisation intervention to prevent violence against women created change in Kampala, Uganda.“萨萨!”是治疗暴力的药物。关于乌干达坎帕拉一项预防针对妇女暴力行为的社区动员干预措施如何带来改变的定性研究结果 。
Glob Health Action. 2014 Sep 12;7:25082. doi: 10.3402/gha.v7.25082. eCollection 2014.
7
A community mobilisation intervention to prevent violence against women and reduce HIV/AIDS risk in Kampala, Uganda (the SASA! Study): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.一项在乌干达坎帕拉开展的社区动员干预措施,旨在预防针对妇女的暴力行为和降低艾滋病病毒感染风险(SASA! 研究):一项群组随机对照试验的研究方案。
Trials. 2012 Jun 29;13:96. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-96.
8
Community activism as a strategy to reduce intimate partner violence (IPV) in rural Rwanda: Results of a community randomised trial.社区行动作为减少卢旺达农村亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)的策略:一项社区随机试验的结果。
J Glob Health. 2020 Jun;10(1):010406. doi: 10.7189/jogh.10.010406.
9
Findings from the SASA! Study: a cluster randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of a community mobilization intervention to prevent violence against women and reduce HIV risk in Kampala, Uganda.“萨萨!”研究的结果:一项整群随机对照试验,旨在评估在乌干达坎帕拉开展的一项社区动员干预措施对预防针对妇女的暴力行为及降低感染艾滋病毒风险的影响。
BMC Med. 2014 Jul 31;12:122. doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0122-5.
10
Effectiveness of a multi-level intervention to reduce men's perpetration of intimate partner violence: a cluster randomised controlled trial.多层面干预降低男性亲密伴侣暴力行为的效果:一项群组随机对照试验。
Trials. 2020 Apr 25;21(1):359. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-4185-7.

引用本文的文献

1
Implementation matters: program impact pathway analysis of four sectoral nutrition-sensitive interventions in Anambra and Kebbi states, Nigeria.实施很重要:尼日利亚阿南布拉州和凯比州四项部门营养敏感型干预措施的项目影响路径分析
Glob Health Action. 2025 Dec;18(1):2519677. doi: 10.1080/16549716.2025.2519677. Epub 2025 Jun 26.
2
Community-led strategies for communicable disease prevention and management in low- and middle- income countries: A mixed-methods systematic review of health, social, and economic impact.低收入和中等收入国家中由社区主导的传染病预防与管理策略:对健康、社会和经济影响的混合方法系统评价
PLOS Glob Public Health. 2025 Apr 2;5(4):e0004304. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0004304. eCollection 2025.
3

本文引用的文献

1
The cost and cost-effectiveness of gender-responsive interventions for HIV: a systematic review.针对艾滋病毒的性别平等干预措施的成本及成本效益:一项系统综述
J Int AIDS Soc. 2014 Nov 4;17(1):19228. doi: 10.7448/IAS.17.1.19228. eCollection 2014.
2
Findings from the SASA! Study: a cluster randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of a community mobilization intervention to prevent violence against women and reduce HIV risk in Kampala, Uganda.“萨萨!”研究的结果:一项整群随机对照试验,旨在评估在乌干达坎帕拉开展的一项社区动员干预措施对预防针对妇女的暴力行为及降低感染艾滋病毒风险的影响。
BMC Med. 2014 Jul 31;12:122. doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0122-5.
3
Associations between intimate partner violence and women's labor market outcomes in Nigeria.
尼日利亚亲密伴侣暴力与妇女劳动力市场结果之间的关联。
Glob Health Res Policy. 2024 Jun 20;9(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s41256-024-00362-1.
4
What Interventions are Cost Effective in Reducing Violence Against Women? A Scoping Review.哪些干预措施能有效减少针对妇女的暴力行为? 范围综述。
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2024 May;22(3):283-296. doi: 10.1007/s40258-023-00870-0. Epub 2024 Jan 27.
5
Ugandan Men Exposed to Intimate Partner Violence: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Nationally Representative Data.乌干达男性遭受亲密伴侣暴力:全国代表性数据的横断面调查。
J Prev (2022). 2022 Aug;43(4):567-588. doi: 10.1007/s10935-022-00683-2. Epub 2022 Jun 1.
6
Prevention of violence against women and girls: A cost-effectiveness study across 6 low- and middle-income countries.预防针对妇女和女童的暴力行为:6 个中低收入国家的成本效益研究。
PLoS Med. 2022 Mar 24;19(3):e1003827. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003827. eCollection 2022 Mar.
7
Intertwined epidemics: progress, gaps, and opportunities to address intimate partner violence and HIV among key populations of women.交织的疫情:在妇女重点人群中解决亲密伴侣暴力和艾滋病毒问题的进展、差距和机会。
Lancet HIV. 2022 Mar;9(3):e202-e213. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(21)00325-8. Epub 2022 Feb 10.
8
Modelling collective action to change social norms around domestic violence: social dilemmas and the role of altruism.塑造集体行动以改变围绕家庭暴力的社会规范:社会困境与利他主义的作用。
Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2021 Mar 1;8:53. doi: 10.1057/s41599-021-00730-z.
9
Cost-effectiveness analysis of an intimate partner violence prevention intervention targeting men, women and couples in rural Ethiopia: evidence from the Unite for a Better Life randomised controlled trial.针对埃塞俄比亚农村地区男性、女性和夫妻的亲密伴侣暴力预防干预措施的成本效益分析:来自“为美好生活而团结”随机对照试验的证据。
BMJ Open. 2021 Mar 29;11(3):e042365. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042365.
10
What will it cost to prevent violence against women and girls in low- and middle-income countries? Evidence from Ghana, Kenya, Pakistan, Rwanda, South Africa and Zambia.在低收入和中等收入国家预防针对妇女和女童的暴力行为需要多少成本?来自加纳、肯尼亚、巴基斯坦、卢旺达、南非和赞比亚的证据。
Health Policy Plan. 2020 Aug 1;35(7):855-866. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czaa024.
Violence against women and HIV risk behaviors in Kampala, Uganda: baseline findings from the SASA! Study.
乌干达坎帕拉的暴力侵害妇女行为与艾滋病毒风险行为:SASA!研究的基线结果。
Violence Against Women. 2013 Jul;19(7):814-32. doi: 10.1177/1077801213497557.
4
Global health. The global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women.全球卫生。全球范围内针对妇女的亲密伴侣暴力行为的流行情况。
Science. 2013 Jun 28;340(6140):1527-8. doi: 10.1126/science.1240937. Epub 2013 Jun 20.
5
Cost-effectiveness of a health-social partnership transitional program for post-discharge medical patients.出院后医疗患者健康-社会伙伴关系过渡项目的成本效益。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Dec 24;12:479. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-479.
6
A community mobilisation intervention to prevent violence against women and reduce HIV/AIDS risk in Kampala, Uganda (the SASA! Study): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.一项在乌干达坎帕拉开展的社区动员干预措施,旨在预防针对妇女的暴力行为和降低艾滋病病毒感染风险(SASA! 研究):一项群组随机对照试验的研究方案。
Trials. 2012 Jun 29;13:96. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-96.
7
Violence against women is strongly associated with suicide attempts: evidence from the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence against women.针对妇女的暴力行为与自杀企图密切相关:来自世卫组织妇女健康和家庭暴力问题多国家研究的证据。
Soc Sci Med. 2011 Jul;73(1):79-86. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.006. Epub 2011 May 27.
8
Economic evaluation of a combined microfinance and gender training intervention for the prevention of intimate partner violence in rural South Africa.南非农村地区预防亲密伴侣暴力的小额信贷和性别培训综合干预措施的经济评价。
Health Policy Plan. 2011 Sep;26(5):366-72. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czq071. Epub 2010 Oct 25.
9
Cost effectiveness of seasonal intermittent preventive treatment using amodiaquine & artesunate or sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine in Ghanaian children.季节性间歇性预防治疗使用阿莫地喹和青蒿琥酯或磺胺多辛-乙胺嘧啶在加纳儿童中的成本效益。
PLoS One. 2010 Aug 17;5(8):e12223. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012223.
10
Cost and cost-effectiveness of smear-positive tuberculosis treatment by Health Extension Workers in Southern Ethiopia: a community randomized trial. smear 阳性肺结核治疗的成本和成本效益:埃塞俄比亚南部的卫生推广员进行的社区随机试验。
PLoS One. 2010 Feb 17;5(2):e9158. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009158.