Pathways to reduced physical intimate partner violence among women in north-western Tanzania: Evidence from two cluster randomised trials of the MAISHA intervention.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) affects over one-in-four women globally. Combined economic and social empowerment interventions are a promising IPV prevention model. However, questions remain on the mechanisms through which such interventions prevent IPV, and whether standalone social empowerment interventions can work in the absence of an economic component. This secondary analysis of MAISHA Study data (north-western Tanzania) explores pathways through which a group-based gender-training intervention, delivered to women standalone or alongside microfinance, may impact on physical IPV risk. Two cluster-randomised trials (CRT) assessed the impact of the MAISHA intervention on women's IPV risk; CRT01 among women in 66 pre-existing microfinance groups (n = 919), and CRT02 among 66 newly-formed groups not receiving microfinance (n = 1125). Women were surveyed at baseline and 29 months follow-up. Sub-group analyses explored whether intervention effects on past-year experience of physical IPV varied by participant characteristics. Mediators of intervention effect on physical IPV were explored using mixed-effects logistic regression (disaggregated by trial). In CRT01, MAISHA was associated with reduced past-year physical IPV (adjusted-OR 0.63, 95%CI 0.41-0.98), with stronger effects among those younger, more financially independent, and without prior physical IPV. CRT02 showed no impact on physical IPV, overall or among sub-groups. In CRT01, individual-level reduced acceptability of IPV and group-level confidence to intervene against IPV emerged as potential mediators of intervention effect, while relationship-level indicators of communication were not impacted. In CRT02, positive impacts on individual-level attitudes did not translate into reduced IPV risk. In CRT02, arguments with partners over perceived transgressions of gender roles increased in the intervention-arm. Neither trial resulted in increased separations. Findings illustrate the importance of addressing poverty and women's economic dependence on men, structural factors that may impede the success of socially oriented violence prevention programming. Programming with men is also crucial to ameliorate risks of backlash against attitudinal/behavioural change among women. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT02592252.

A cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the impact of a gender transformative intervention on intimate partner violence against women in newly formed neighbourhood groups in Tanzania.

INTRODUCTION: Violence against women is a global public health concern; around a quarter of women will experience intimate partner physical or sexual violence during their lifetime. We assessed the impact of a gender transformative intervention for women designed to prevent intimate partner violence (IPV). METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial in Mwanza city, Tanzania, among women in newly formed neighbourhood groups to evaluate a 10-session participatory intervention that aims to empower women, prevent IPV and promote healthy relationships. Following a baseline interview, groups were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to the intervention or control arm. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted to assess the impact of the intervention on the main outcomes, assessed 24 months postintervention. These included past-year physical IPV and sexual IPV (primary); past-year emotional abuse; and acceptability and tolerance of IPV. RESULTS: Between September 2015 and February 2017, 1265 women were recruited in 66 neighbourhoods and randomly allocated to intervention (n=627 women in 33 neighbourhoods) or control (n=638 women in 33 neighbourhoods). Assessment of outcomes was completed for 551 (88%) intervention and 575 (90%) control women. Among intervention women, 113 (21%) reported physical IPV compared with 117 (20%) control women (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.33, p=0.892), and 109 (20%) intervention women reported sexual IPV compared with 121 (21%) control women (aOR 0.98, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.32, p=0.881). Intervention women reported less emotional abuse (aOR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.98, p=0.035), and were less likely to express attitudes accepting of IPV (aOR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.66, p<0.001), and beliefs that IPV is a private matter (aOR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.78, p=0.001), or should be tolerated (aOR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.66, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: These results indicate that the intervention was effective in reducing emotional abuse and positively impacting attitudes and beliefs condoning IPV, but was not sufficient to reduce physical or sexual IPV. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02592252.

A social empowerment intervention to prevent intimate partner violence against women in a microfinance scheme in Tanzania: findings from the MAISHA cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Globally, about 30% of women have experienced physical or sexual violence, or both, from an intimate partner during their lifetime. Associations between poverty and women's increased risk of intimate partner violence have been observed. We therefore aimed to assess the effect of a violence prevention intervention delivered to women participating in a group-based microfinance scheme in Tanzania. METHODS: We did a cluster randomised controlled trial among women taking part in a microfinance loan scheme in Mwanza city, Tanzania. A microfinance loan group was only enrolled if at least 70% of members consented. We randomly assigned the microfinance groups in blocks of six to receive either the intervention (ie, the intervention arm) or be wait-listed for the intervention after the trial (ie, the control arm). Women in both arms of the trial met weekly for loan repayments. Only those in the intervention arm participated in the ten-session MAISHA intervention that aims to empower women and prevent intimate partner violence. Given the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to mask participants or the research team. The primary outcome was a composite of reported past-year physical or sexual intimate partner violence, or both. Secondary outcome measures were past-year physical, sexual, and emotional intimate partner violence; acceptability and tolerance of intimate partner violence; and attitudes and beliefs related to intimate partner violence. These outcomes were assessed 24 months after the intervention. An intention-to-treat analysis was done, adjusting for age, education, and baseline measure of the respective outcome. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02592252. FINDINGS: Between September, 2014, and June, 2015, 66 (65%) of 101 microfinance groups approached in the study area met the trial eligibility criteria and were enrolled, of which 33 (n=544 women) were allocated to the intervention arm and 33 (n=505 women) to the control arm. Overall, 485 (89%) of 544 women in the intervention arm and 434 (86%) of 505 in the control arm completed the outcomes assessment. Among the intervention arm, 112 (23%) of 485 women reported past-year physical or sexual intimate partner violence, or both, compared with 119 (27%) of 434 in the control arm (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·69, 95% CI 0·47-1·01; p=0·056). Women in the intervention arm were less likely to report physical intimate partner violence (aOR 0·64, 95% CI 0·41-0·99; p=0·043) and were less likely to express attitudes accepting of intimate partner violence (0·45, 0·34-0·61; p<0·0001) or beliefs that intimate partner violence is a private matter (0·51, 0·32-0·81; p=0·005) or should be tolerated (0·68, 0·45-1·01; p=0·055). There was no evidence of an effect on reported sexual or emotional intimate partner violence. There were no reports that participation in the trial had led to new episodes of violence or worsening of ongoing violence and abuse. INTERPRETATION: Reported physical or sexual intimate partner violence, or both, was reduced among women who participated in the intervention arm, although the effect was greater for physical intimate partner violence, suggesting that intimate partner violence is preventable in high-risk settings such as Tanzania. FUNDING: Anonymous donor and STRIVE Consortium.