Good School Toolkit-Secondary Schools to prevent violence against students: protocol for a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: No whole-school interventions which seek to reduce physical, sexual and emotional violence from peers, intimate partners and teachers have been trialled with adolescents. Here, we report a protocol for a pilot trial of the Good School Toolkit-Secondary Schools intervention, to be tested in Ugandan secondary schools. Our main objectives are to (1) refine the intervention, (2) to understand feasibility of delivery of the intervention and (3) to explore design parameters for a subsequent phase III trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial, with two arms and parallel assignment. Eight schools will be randomly selected from a stratified list of all eligible schools in Kampala and Wakiso Districts. We will conduct a baseline survey and endline survey 18 months after the baseline, with 960 adolescents and 200 teachers. Qualitative data and mixed methods process data collection will be conducted throughout the intervention. Proportion of staff and students reporting acceptability, understanding and implementing with fidelity will be tabulated at endline for intervention schools. Proportions of schools consenting to participation, randomisation and proportions of schools and individual participants completing the baseline and endline surveys will be described in a Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials diagram. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The ethical requirements of our project are complex. Full approvals have been received from the Mildmay Ethics Committee (0407-2019), the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (SS 6020) and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (16212). Results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed academic journals, and shared with public bodies, policy makers, study participants and the general public in Uganda. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PACTR202009826515511.

Adapting a complex violence prevention intervention: a case study of the Good School Toolkit in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Adaptation is a key strategy to extend the reach of evidence-based interventions to prevent violence in new populations, but there is a dearth of practical case examples. The Good School Toolkit was developed by Ugandan NGO Raising Voices for use in primary schools (GST-P). We describe our systematic approach to adapting the GST-P for use in secondary schools in Uganda, and reflect on the utility of the process as well as limitations of existing adaptation frameworks. METHODS: We adapted the GST-P in four phases, which included: I) clarifying the logic model and core intervention components using a streamlined process; II) conducting formative research (cross-sectional survey, focus groups, etc.) to understand the new population; III) selecting and preparing new intervention components and modifying existing intervention components; and IV) pretesting new intervention components with teachers and students in Uganda. RESULTS: We identified core components using a logic model. Formative research showed results largely in line with our apriori hypotheses. Teacher violence remained highly prevalent in secondary versus primary schools (> 65% of secondary students reported past year exposure), while peer violence significantly increased (secondary = 52% vs. primary girls = 40%, P < 0.001; secondary = 54% vs. primary boys = 44%, P = 0.009) in secondary versus primary schools. Significantly more secondary girls (51%) than secondary boys (45%) reported past year dating/intimate partner violence (P = 0.03). Inequitable, gendered educational practices emerged as a salient theme, perceived to heighten female students' vulnerability to violence. In light of these findings, we made several adjustments to the adapted intervention. We strengthened existing teacher and peer violence intervention components. We also developed, pretested and revised new program components to prevent dating violence and promote 'gender fairness in schools'. Finally, original activities were modified to support engagement with school administration and promote increased student agency in secondary schools. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our experience, it was difficult to apply mechanistic models to clarify the intervention logic of the GST-P, a complex multicomponent intervention, and simpler methods may be sufficient. Our team had high levels of contextual knowledge before the adaptation, and formative research to understand the new target population provided only limited additional insight. In similar situations, a simplified approach to mapping the core intervention components, qualitative research to understand the new target population, and pre-testing of new intervention components may be the most informative elements of systematic adaptation processes.

The association between violence victimization and subsequent unplanned pregnancy among adolescent girls in Uganda: Do primary schools make a difference?

Violence victimization is a risk factor for adolescent pregnancy in high-income, low violence prevalence countries, but longitudinal data are lacking from settings where violence and adolescent pregnancy are common, including sub-Saharan Africa. We also know little about contextual factors which modify this association. We analyzed data from the Contexts of Violence in Adolescence Cohort (CoVAC) study in Luwero District, Uganda. Primary students in 42 schools completed surveys in 2014 (Wave 1) and 2018 (Wave 2). Our outcome was unplanned pregnancy. Our exposure was violence victimization, including any violence, type of violence (physical, emotional, sexual), perpetrator group (teacher, peer, family member), and polyvictimization. We fit mixed-effects logistic regression models and examined school factors (e.g., connectedness, absenteeism) as effect modifiers, using data from students (n = 3,431) and staff (n = 591) at the 42 schools. 1,449 girls were included in analyses (78% follow-up). At Wave 1, 88% (n = 1,281/1,449) reported any violence (mean age = 12.73, SD = 1.44 years). At Wave 2, 13.9% (n = 201/1,449) reported an unplanned pregnancy. In adjusted models, compared to no violence, significant associations (p<0.05) were observed for any violence (OR = 1.99, 95%CI = 1.03-3.85), physical violence (OR = 1.96, 95%CI = 1.02-3.79), teacher violence (OR = 1.96, 95%CI = 1.01-3.79), peer violence (OR = 2.00, 95%CI = 1.00-4.03), family violence (OR = 2.23, 95%CI = 1.07-4.65), violence from one perpetrator group (OR = 2.04, 95%CI = 1.01-4.15), and violence from three perpetrator groups (OR = 2.21, 95%CI = 0.99-4.95). Sexual and emotional violence were associated in crude but not adjusted analyses. School and peer connectedness modified the association (p<0.05); girls who experienced violence had higher odds of unplanned pregnancy in schools with lower versus higher connectedness. Violence victimization in early adolescence is strongly associated with subsequent unplanned pregnancy among adolescent girls in Uganda but attending schools with more school or peer connectedness attenuated this link. Interventions should seek to reduce violence against girls to prevent unplanned pregnancy. Interventions promoting positive connections to school may be especially important for violence victims.

Remote methods for research on violence against women and children: lessons and challenges from research during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Collecting data to understand violence against women and children during and after the COVID-19 pandemic is essential to inform violence prevention and response efforts. Although researchers across fields have pivoted to remote rather than in-person data collection, remote research on violence against women, children and young people poses particular challenges. As a group of violence researchers, we reflect on our experiences across eight studies in six countries that we redesigned to include remote data collection methods. We found the following areas were crucial in fulfilling our commitments to participants, researchers, violence prevention and research ethics: (1) designing remote data collection in the context of strong research partnerships; (2) adapting data collection approaches; (3) developing additional safeguarding processes in the context of remote data collection during the pandemic; and (4) providing remote support for researchers. We discuss lessons learnt in each of these areas and across the research design and implementation process, and summarise key considerations for other researchers considering remote data collection on violence.

Student, teacher, and caregiver perceptions on implementing mental health interventions in Ugandan schools.

Background: The vast majority of children and adolescents in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) lack access to interventions for mental health problems. Schools provide a critical platform for evidence-based intervention delivery for young people. However, a significant need exists to understand the implementation context and strategies for delivering school mental health interventions in LMICs. Methods: We conducted a focused ethnography to explore students', teachers', and caregivers' perspectives on implementing evidence-based mental health interventions (EBIs) within a widespread violence prevention program in Uganda. Data collection occurred in Kampala, Uganda, using two schools that have previously implemented an evidence-based violence prevention program widely used in Ugandan schools schools, the Good School Toolkit (GST). Trained, local researchers facilitated four focus group discussions (FGDs) with caregivers (n = 22), four FGDs with teachers (n = 25), and in-depth interviews with primary school students (n = 12). Verbatim transcripts were analyzed using a framework analysis approach. Results: Participants revealed a school culture that promotes schools' responsibility to students beyond academics, including positive teacher-student relationships. Participants recommended an implementation process that trains teachers and students in screening and referral, peer group delivery, and is accompanied by a school-wide approach to stigma reduction and mental health literacy. Participants fundamentally agreed that teachers could be trained as intervention facilitators. Conclusions: This study highlights the potential advantage of leveraging an existing intervention that already addresses implementation factors, such as school culture, as a fertile platform for implementing interventions for child and adolescent mental health in LMICs. Plain language abstract: Despite the growth of implementation research for child and adolescent mental health, the study of implementation science for child and adolescent mental health in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains scarce. Schools provide a critical platform for evidence-based intervention delivery for young people. However, a significant need exists to understand the implementation context and strategies for delivering school mental health interventions in LMICs. This study provides rich qualitative data describing the context and influences for the successful implementation of mental health interventions in LMIC schools. We conducted interviews and focus groups with teachers, students, and caregivers to determine their perspectives on implementing evidence-based mental health interventions (EBIs) within a widespread violence prevention program in Uganda. Participants revealed a school culture promoted by the existing program that promotes schools' responsibility to students beyond academics, including positive teacher-student relationships. Findings suggest the existing program provides fertile ground for the successful implementation of evidence-based mental health interventions in schools.

Long-Term Outcomes of the Good School Toolkit Primary School Violence Prevention Intervention Among Adolescents: Protocol for a Nonrandomized Quasi-Experimental Study.

BACKGROUND: Violence against children in schools is a global public health problem. There is growing evidence that school-based interventions can be effective in reducing violence against children in schools. However, there is little evidence on the long-term impact of such interventions. The Good School Toolkit, developed by Raising Voices, a Uganda-based nonprofit organization, is a whole-school violence prevention intervention that aims to change the operational culture of primary schools. In 2014, the Good School Toolkit was evaluated through a cluster randomized controlled trial (Good Schools Study) and found to reduce teacher-to-student and student-to-student violence. OBJECTIVE: This protocol describes quantitative analyses to explore long-term outcomes of the Good School Toolkit intervention among adolescents in Uganda, including the extent to which it is associated with peer-violence victimization (primary outcome) and peer-violence perpetration, intimate-partner violence, acceptance of teacher-violence, equitable gender attitudes, agency, self-regulation, peer connectedness, social assets, psychological assets, and retention in school (secondary outcomes). METHODS: This is a nonrandomized quasi-experimental 4-year follow-up study of adolescents who attended the 42 Good Schools Study primary schools in 2014; 21 schools initiated the Good School Toolkit intervention during the trial from 2012, and 19 schools initiated the intervention after the trial (during the later delivery phase) from 2015; 2 schools did not implement the intervention. Students in the final school grade (Primary 7) during 2014 of the 19 primary schools in the later delivery phase are expected to have left school prior to toolkit delivery in 2015. Wave 1 data were collected in 2014 from 3431 grade Primary 5 to Primary 7 school students aged 11-14 years; these students were followed up in 2018-2019 when aged 16-19 years and invited to participate in the Wave 2 survey. Data were collected in face-to-face interviews by trained Ugandan field researchers. Toolkit exposure groups are defined as exposed during the Good Schools Study trial (from 2012), as exposed during later delivery (from 2015), or not exposed including those expected to have completed Primary 7 prior to later delivery or from the 2 schools that did not implement the toolkit. Associations between outcomes at Wave 2 and toolkit exposure groups will be analyzed using mixed-effect multivariable logistic and linear regression models for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. This analysis is exploratory and aims to generate hypotheses on if, and under what circumstances, the toolkit influences later adolescent outcomes. RESULTS: Data collection was completed in August 2019. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first long-term follow-up study of adolescents exposed to a school-based violence-prevention intervention in sub-Saharan Africa. If the intervention reduces violence and improves other outcomes in later adolescence, then this study supports primary school interventions as key to achieving long-term population impacts. The pattern of effects will inform where reinforced or additional interventions are needed. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/20940.

Violence against children and intimate partner violence against women: overlap and common contributing factors among caregiver-adolescent dyads.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence against women (IPV) and violence against children (VAC) are both global epidemics with long-term health consequences. The vast majority of research to date focuses on either IPV or VAC, however the intersections between these types of violence are a growing area of global attention. A significant need exists for empirical research on the overlap of IPV and VAC, especially in contexts with particularly high rates of both types of violence. METHODS: This exploratory study includes secondary analysis of data from a cluster randomized controlled trial in Ugandan schools. Using baseline reports from a random sample of early adolescents attending school and their caregivers, this study uses a probability sample across all eligible schools of adolescent-caregiver dyads (n = 535). We categorized adolescent-caregiver dyads into four groups: those reporting VAC 'only', IPV 'only', both VAC and IPV, or 'no violence'. Two separate multinomial logistic regression models for male and female caregivers explored adolescent and caregiver characteristics associated with the VAC 'only', the IPV 'only', or the both VAC and IPV dyads, each compared to the 'no violence' dyad. RESULTS: One third of dyads reported both IPV and VAC and nearly 75% of dyads reported VAC or IPV. Dyads reporting IPV were more likely to also report VAC. Common contributing factors for female caregiver-adolescent dyads with both VAC and IPV include lower SES, less caregiver education, higher caregiver mental distress, more frequent caregiver alcohol use, and caregivers who report less emotional attachment to their intimate partner. Male caregiver-adolescent dyads with both VAC and IPV included caregivers with less emotional attachment to their intimate partner and more attitudes accepting VAC. CONCLUSIONS: Findings reveal a significant overlap of IPV and VAC and the importance for violence prevention and response programming to consider coordinated or integrated programming. Unique results for female and male caregivers highlight the importance of a gendered approach to addressing IPV and VAC intersections. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01678846, on September 5, 2012.

Implementation of the Good School Toolkit in Uganda: a quantitative process evaluation of a successful violence prevention program.

BACKGROUND: The Good School Toolkit, a complex behavioural intervention designed by Raising Voices a Ugandan NGO, reduced past week physical violence from school staff to primary students by an average of 42% in a recent randomised controlled trial. This process evaluation quantitatively examines what was implemented across the twenty-one intervention schools, variations in school prevalence of violence after the intervention, factors that influence exposure to the intervention and factors associated with students' experience of physical violence from staff at study endline. METHODS: Implementation measures were captured prospectively in the twenty-one intervention schools over four school terms from 2012 to 2014 and Toolkit exposure captured in the student (n = 1921) and staff (n = 286) endline cross-sectional surveys in 2014. Implementation measures and the prevalence of violence are summarised across schools and are assessed for correlation using Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient. Regression models are used to explore individual factors associated with Toolkit exposure and with physical violence at endline. RESULTS: School prevalence of past week physical violence from staff against students ranged from 7% to 65% across schools at endline. Schools with higher mean levels of teacher Toolkit exposure had larger decreases in violence during the study. Students in schools categorised as implementing a 'low' number of program school-led activities reported less exposure to the Toolkit. Higher student Toolkit exposure was associated with decreased odds of experiencing physical violence from staff (OR: 0.76, 95%CI: 0.67-0.86, p-value< 0.001). Girls, students reporting poorer mental health and students in a lower grade were less exposed to the toolkit. After the intervention, and when adjusting for individual Toolkit exposure, some students remained at increased risk of experiencing violence from staff, including, girls, students reporting poorer mental health, students who experienced other violence and those reporting difficulty with self-care. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that increasing students and teachers exposure to the Good School Toolkit within schools has the potential to bring about further reductions in violence. Effectiveness of the Toolkit may be increased by further targeting and supporting teachers' engagement with girls and students with mental health difficulties. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov , NCT01678846, August 24th 2012.

Towards a feminist understanding of intersecting violence against women and children in the family.

While intimate partner violence (IPV) against women and violence against children (VAC) have emerged as distinct fields of research and programming, a growing number of studies demonstrate the extent to which these forms of violence overlap in the same households. However, existing knowledge of how and why such co-occurrence takes place is limited, particularly in the Global South. The current study aims to advance empirical and conceptual understanding of intersecting IPV and VAC within families in order to inform potential programming. We explore shared perceptions and experiences of IPV and VAC using qualitative data collected in December 2015 from adults and children in Kampala, Uganda (n = 106). We find that the patriarchal family structure creates an environment that normalizes many forms of violence, simultaneously infantilizing women and reinforcing their subordination (alongside children). Based on participant experiences, we identify four potential patterns that suggest how IPV and VAC not only co-occur, but more profoundly intersect within the family, triggering cycles of emotional and physical abuse: bystander trauma, negative role modeling, protection and further victimization, and displaced aggression. The discussion is situated within a feminist analysis, including careful consideration of maternal violence and an emphasis on the ways in which gender and power dynamics can coalesce and contribute to intra-family violence.

Ecological pathways to prevention: How does the SASA! community mobilisation model work to prevent physical intimate partner violence against women?

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women is a global public health concern. While community-level gender norms and attitudes to IPV are recognised drivers of IPV risk, there is little evidence on how interventions might tackle these drivers to prevent IPV at the community-level. This secondary analysis of data from the SASA! study explores the pathways through which SASA!, a community mobilisation intervention to prevent violence against women, achieved community-wide reductions in physical IPV. METHODS: From 2007 to 2012 a cluster randomised controlled trial (CRT) was conducted in eight communities in Kampala, Uganda. Cross-sectional surveys of a random sample of community members, aged 18-49, were undertaken at baseline (n = 1583) and 4 years post intervention implementation (n = 2532). We used cluster-level intention to treat analysis to estimate SASA!'s community-level impact on women's past year experience of physical IPV and men's past year perpetration of IPV. The mediating roles of community-, relationship- and individual-level factors in intervention effect on past year physical IPV experience (women)/perpetration (men) were explored using modified Poisson regression models. RESULTS: SASA! was associated with reductions in women's past year experience of physical IPV (0.48, 95 % CI 0.16-1.39), as well as men's perpetration of IPV (0.39, 95 % CI 0.20-0.73). Community-level normative attitudes were the most important mediators of intervention impact on physical IPV risk, with norms around the acceptability of IPV explaining 70 % of the intervention effect on women's experience of IPV and 95 % of the effect on men's perpetration. The strongest relationship-level mediators were men's reduced suspicion of partner infidelity (explaining 22 % of effect on men's perpetration), and improved communication around sex (explaining 16 % of effect on women's experience). Reduced acceptability of IPV among men was the most important individual-level mediator (explaining 42 % of effect on men's perpetration). CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the important role of community-level norm-change in achieving community-wide reductions in IPV risk. They lend strong support for the more widespread adoption of community-level approaches to preventing violence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00790959 . Registered 13th November 2008. The study protocol is available at: http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/13/1/96.

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.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a global public health and human rights concern, though there is limited evidence on how to prevent it. This secondary analysis of data from the SASA! Study assesses the potential of a community mobilisation IPV prevention intervention to reduce overall prevalence of IPV, new onset of abuse (primary prevention) and continuation of prior abuse (secondary prevention). METHODS: A pair-matched cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted in 8 communities (4 intervention, 4 control) in Kampala, Uganda (2007-2012). Cross-sectional surveys of community members, 18-49 years old, were undertaken at baseline (n=1583) and 4 years postintervention implementation (n=2532). Outcomes relate to women's past year experiences of physical and sexual IPV, emotional aggression, controlling behaviours and fear of partner. An adjusted cluster-level intention-to-treat analysis compared outcomes in intervention and control communities at follow-up. RESULTS: At follow-up, all types of IPV (including severe forms of each) were lower in intervention communities compared with control communities. SASA! was associated with lower onset of abuse and lower continuation of prior abuse. Statistically significant effects were observed for continued physical IPV (adjusted risk ratio 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.96); continued sexual IPV (0.68, 0.53 to 0.87); continued emotional aggression (0.68, 0.52 to 0.89); continued fear of partner (0.67, 0.51 to 0.89); and new onset of controlling behaviours (0.38, 0.23 to 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Community mobilisation is an effective means for both primary and secondary prevention of IPV. Further support should be given to the replication and scale up of SASA! and other similar interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00790959.

Are school-level factors associated with primary school students' experience of physical violence from school staff in Uganda?

BACKGROUND: The nature and structure of the school environment has the potential to shape children's health and well being. Few studies have explored the importance of school-level factors in explaining a child's likelihood of experiencing violence from school staff, particularly in low-resource settings such as Uganda. METHODS: To quantify to what extent a student's risk of violence is determined by school-level factors we fitted multilevel logistic regression models to investigate associations and present between-school variance partition coefficients. School structural factors, academic and supportive environment are explored. RESULTS: 53% of students reported physical violence from staff. Only 6% of variation in students' experience of violence was due to differences between schools and half the variation was explained by the school-level factors modelled. Schools with a higher proportion of girls are associated with increased odds of physical violence from staff. Students in schools with a high level of student perceptions of school connectedness have a 36% reduced odds of experiencing physical violence from staff, but no other school-level factor was significantly associated. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that physical violence by school staff is widespread across different types of schools in this setting, but interventions that improve students' school connectedness should be considered.

What is the potential for interventions designed to prevent violence against women to reduce children's exposure to violence? Findings from the SASA! study, Kampala, Uganda.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) and child maltreatment often co-occur in households and lead to negative outcomes for children. This article explores the extent to which SASA!, an intervention to prevent violence against women, impacted children's exposure to violence. Between 2007 and 2012 a cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted in Kampala, Uganda. An adjusted cluster-level intention to treat analysis, compares secondary outcomes in intervention and control communities at follow-up. Under the qualitative evaluation, 82 in-depth interviews were audio recorded at follow-up, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis complemented by constant comparative methods. This mixed-methods article draws mainly on the qualitative data. The findings suggest that SASA! impacted on children's experience of violence in three main ways. First, quantitative data suggest that children's exposure to IPV was reduced. We estimate that reductions in IPV combined with reduced witnessing by children when IPV did occur, led to a 64% reduction in prevalence of children witnessing IPV in their home (aRR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06-2.20). Second, among couples who experienced reduced IPV, qualitative data suggests parenting and discipline practices sometimes also changed-improving parent-child relationships and for a few parents, resulting in the complete rejection of corporal punishment as a disciplinary method. Third, some participants reported intervening to prevent violence against children. The findings suggest that interventions to prevent IPV may also impact on children's exposure to violence, and improve parent-child relationships. They also point to potential synergies for violence prevention, an area meriting further exploration.

The Good School Toolkit for reducing physical violence from school staff to primary school students: a cluster-randomised controlled trial in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Violence against children from school staff is widespread in various settings, but few interventions address this. We tested whether the Good School Toolkit-a complex behavioural intervention designed by Ugandan not-for-profit organisation Raising Voices-could reduce physical violence from school staff to Ugandan primary school children. METHODS: We randomly selected 42 primary schools (clusters) from 151 schools in Luwero District, Uganda, with more than 40 primary 5 students and no existing governance interventions. All schools agreed to be enrolled. All students in primary 5, 6, and 7 (approximate ages 11-14 years) and all staff members who spoke either English or Luganda and could provide informed consent were eligible for participation in cross-sectional baseline and endline surveys in June-July 2012 and 2014, respectively. We randomly assigned 21 schools to receive the Good School Toolkit and 21 to a waitlisted control group in September, 2012. The intervention was implemented from September, 2012, to April, 2014. Owing to the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to mask assignment. The primary outcome, assessed in 2014, was past week physical violence from school staff, measured by students' self-reports using the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Child Abuse Screening Tool-Child Institutional. Analyses were by intention to treat, and are adjusted for clustering within schools and for baseline school-level means of continuous outcomes. The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01678846. FINDINGS: No schools left the study. At 18-month follow-up, 3820 (92·4%) of 4138 randomly sampled students participated in a cross-sectional survey. Prevalence of past week physical violence was lower in the intervention schools (595/1921, 31·0%) than in the control schools (924/1899, 48·7%; odds ratio 0·40, 95% CI 0·26-0·64, p<0·0001). No adverse events related to the intervention were detected, but 434 children were referred to child protective services because of what they disclosed in the follow-up survey. INTERPRETATION: The Good School Toolkit is an effective intervention to reduce violence against children from school staff in Ugandan primary schools. FUNDING: MRC, DfID, Wellcome Trust, Hewlett Foundation.

The impact of SASA!, a community mobilization intervention, on reported HIV-related risk behaviours and relationship dynamics in Kampala, Uganda.

INTRODUCTION: Intimate partner violence (IPV) violates women's human rights, and it is a serious public health concern associated with increased HIV risk. SASA!, a phased community mobilization intervention, engages communities to prevent IPV and promote gender equity. The SASA! study assessed the community-level impact of SASA! on reported HIV-related risk behaviours and relationship dynamics. METHODS: Data were collected as part of a cluster randomized controlled trial conducted between 2007 and 2012 in eight communities in Kampala. An adjusted cluster-level intention to treat analysis, compares secondary outcomes in intervention and control communities at follow-up. The qualitative evaluation explored participants' subjective experience of SASA!. A total of 82 in-depth interviews were audio recorded at follow-up, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Men in intervention communities were significantly more likely than controls to report a broad range of HIV-protective behaviours, including higher levels of condom use (aRR 2.03, 95% CI 1.22-3.39), HIV testing (aRR 1.50, 95% CI 1.13-2.00) and fewer concurrent partners (aRR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.97). They were also more likely to report increased joint decision-making (aRR 1.92, 95% CI 1.27-2.91), greater male participation in household tasks (aRR 1.48, 95% CI 1.09-2.01), more open communication and greater appreciation of their partner's work inside (aRR 1.31, 95% CI 1.04-1.66) and outside (aRR 1.49, 95% CI 1.08-2.06) the home. For women, all outcomes were in the hypothesized direction, but effect sizes were smaller. Only some achieved statistical significance. Women in intervention communities were significantly more likely to report being able to refuse sex with their partners (aRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.00-1.35), joint decision-making (aRR 1.37, 95% CI 1.06-1.78) and more open communication on a number of indicators. Qualitative interviews suggest that shifts operated through broader improvements in relationships, including increased trust and cooperation, participants' greater awareness of the connections between HIV and IPV and their resultant desire to improve their relationships. Barriers to change include partial uptake of SASA!, partner resistance, fear and entrenched previous beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: SASA! impacted positively on reported HIV-related risk behaviours and relationship dynamics at a community level, especially among men. Social change programmes focusing on IPV and gender equity could play an important role in HIV prevention efforts.

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.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) and HIV are important and interconnected public health concerns. While it is recognized that they share common social drivers, there is limited evidence surrounding the potential of community interventions to reduce violence and HIV risk at the community level. The SASA! study assessed the community-level impact of SASA!, a community mobilization intervention to prevent violence and reduce HIV-risk behaviors. METHODS: From 2007 to 2012 a pair-matched cluster randomized controlled trial (CRT) was conducted in eight communities (four intervention and four control) in Kampala, Uganda. Cross-sectional surveys of a random sample of community members, 18- to 49-years old, were undertaken at baseline (n = 1,583) and four years post intervention implementation (n = 2,532). Six violence and HIV-related primary outcomes were defined a priori. An adjusted cluster-level intention-to-treat analysis compared outcomes in intervention and control communities at follow-up. RESULTS: The intervention was associated with significantly lower social acceptance of IPV among women (adjusted risk ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 0.79) and lower acceptance among men (0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.15); significantly greater acceptance that a woman can refuse sex among women (1.28, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.52) and men (1.31, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70); 52% lower past year experience of physical IPV among women (0.48, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.39); and lower levels of past year experience of sexual IPV (0.76, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.72). Women experiencing violence in intervention communities were more likely to receive supportive community responses. Reported past year sexual concurrency by men was significantly lower in intervention compared to control communities (0.57, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first CRT in sub-Saharan Africa to assess the community impact of a mobilization program on the social acceptability of IPV, the past year prevalence of IPV and levels of sexual concurrency. SASA! achieved important community impacts, and is now being delivered in control communities and replicated in 15 countries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT00790959.

'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.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) violates women's human rights and is a serious public health concern. Historically strategies to prevent IPV have focussed on individuals and their relationships without addressing the context under which IPV occurs. Primary prevention of IPV is a relatively new focus of international efforts and what SASA!, a phased community mobilisation intervention, seeks to achieve. METHODS: Conducted in Kampala, Uganda, between 2007 and 2012, the SASA! Study is a cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the community-level impact of SASA! This nested qualitative study explores pathways of individual- and community-level change as a result of SASA! Forty in-depth interviews with community members (20 women, 20 men) were conducted at follow-up, audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis complemented by constant comparative methods. RESULTS: SASA! influenced the dynamics of relationships and broader community norms. At the relationship level, SASA! is helping partners to explore the benefits of mutually supportive gender roles; improve communication on a variety of issues; increase levels of joint decision-making and highlight non-violent ways to deal with anger or disagreement. Not all relationships experienced the same breadth and depth of change. At the community level, SASA! has helped foster a climate of non-tolerance of violence by reducing the acceptability of violence against women and increasing individuals' skills, willingness, and sense of responsibility to act to prevent it. It has also developed and strengthened community-based structures to catalyse and support on-going activism to prevent IPV. DISCUSSION: This paper provides evidence of the ways in which community-based violence prevention interventions may reduce IPV in low-income settings. It offers important implications for community mobilisation approaches and for prevention of IPV against women. This research has demonstrated the potential of social norm change interventions at the community level to achieve meaningful impact within project timeframes.

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.

BACKGROUND: Gender based violence, including violence by an intimate partner, is a major global human rights and public health problem, with important connections with HIV risk. Indeed, the elimination of sexual and gender based violence is a core pillar of HIV prevention for UNAIDS. Integrated strategies to address the gender norms, relations and inequities that underlie both violence against women and HIV/AIDS are needed. However there is limited evidence about the potential impact of different intervention models. This protocol describes the SASA! STUDY: an evaluation of a community mobilisation intervention to prevent violence against women and reduce HIV/AIDS risk in Kampala, Uganda. METHODS/DESIGN: The SASA! STUDY is a pair-matched cluster randomised controlled trial being conducted in eight communities in Kampala. It is designed to assess the community-level impact of the SASA! intervention on the following six primary outcomes: attitudes towards the acceptability of violence against women and the acceptability of a woman refusing sex (among male and female community members); past year experience of physical intimate partner violence and sexual intimate partner violence (among females); community responses to women experiencing violence (among women reporting past year physical/sexual partner violence); and past year concurrency of sexual partners (among males). 1583 women and men (aged 18-49 years) were surveyed in intervention and control communities prior to intervention implementation in 2007/8. A follow-up cross-sectional survey of community members will take place in 2012. The primary analysis will be an adjusted cluster-level intention to treat analysis, comparing outcomes in intervention and control communities at follow-up. Complementary monitoring and evaluation and qualitative research will be used to explore and describe the process of intervention implementation and the pathways through which change is achieved. DISCUSSION: This is one of few cluster randomised trials globally to assess the impact of a gender-focused community mobilisation intervention. The multi-disciplinary research approach will enable us to address questions of intervention impact and mechanisms of action, as well as its feasibility, acceptability and transferability to other contexts. The results will be of importance to researchers, policy makers and those working on the front line to prevent violence against women and HIV. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT00790959.