Chatterji Sangeeta, Heise Lori, Gibbs Andrew, Dunkle Kristin
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, USA.
Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, USA.
SSM Popul Health. 2020 Jul 29;11:100635. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2020.100635. eCollection 2020 Aug.
Currently, most efforts to evaluate programmes designed to reduce intimate partner violence (IPV) assume that they affect all people similarly. Understanding whether interventions are more or less effective for different subgroups of individuals, however, can yield important insights for programming. In this study, we conducted subgroup analyses to assess whether treatment effects vary by baseline reporting of IPV experience among women or perpetration among men. Results indicated that for both men and women, the intervention in Rwanda was more successful at reducing or stopping ongoing IPV than it was at preventing its onset. The intervention in South Africa, by contrast, was more successful at preventing men from starting to perpetrate IPV than it was in reducing the intensity of men's perpetration or stopping it entirely. These results indicate that the prevention field needs to better understand the extent to which IPV interventions may have differential impacts on primary versus secondary prevention. It also emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between intervention strategies that prevent the onset of IPV versus those that reduce or stop ongoing IPV.
目前，大多数评估旨在减少亲密伴侣暴力（IPV）项目的努力都假定这些项目对所有人的影响是相似的。然而，了解干预措施对不同个体亚组的效果是更好还是更差，可为项目规划提供重要见解。在本研究中，我们进行了亚组分析，以评估治疗效果是否因女性IPV经历的基线报告或男性施暴情况而异。结果表明，对于男性和女性而言，卢旺达的干预措施在减少或制止正在发生的IPV方面比预防其发生更为成功。相比之下，南非的干预措施在防止男性开始实施IPV方面比降低男性施暴强度或完全制止施暴更为成功。这些结果表明，预防领域需要更好地了解IPV干预措施对一级预防和二级预防可能产生不同影响的程度。这也强调了区分预防IPV发生的干预策略与减少或制止正在发生的IPV的干预策略的重要性。
