Violence Exposure, Self-Reported Mental Health Concerns and Use of Alcohol and Drugs for Coping among Youth in the Slums of Kampala, Uganda.

This study aimed to a) compute the prevalence of violence exposure types, polyvictimization, and self-reported depression, anxiety, and using substances to cope among youth ages 12 to 18 years living on the streets or in the slums of Kampala, Uganda, (b) examine the independent associations among orphan status, violence exposure types, and self-reported mental health concerns, and c) explore the association between polyvictimization and mental health concerns. Data are from a 2014 cross-sectional survey of service-seeking youth ages 12 to 18 years (N = 1134) in Kampala, Uganda. Violence exposure types explored in this study were: witnessing family physical violence, direct physical abuse by a parent, any rape history, and physical dating violence. We used descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression to test study objectives. Over half of the sample (60.5%) reported experiencing at least one type of violence exposure; many youth endorsed self-reported depression (57.8%), anxiety (76.8%), and substance use to cope (37.0%). Exposure to violence was associated with higher odds for self-reported depression, anxiety, and using substances to cope. These findings underscore the urgent need to implement evidence-based interventions among this young, underserved population and their families to prevent violence, improve mental health outcomes, and promote resilience.

Examining diffusion to understand the how of SASA!, a violence against women and HIV prevention intervention in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: A growing number of complex public health interventions combine mass media with community-based "change agents" and/or mobilisation efforts acting at multiple levels. While impact evaluations are important, there is a paucity of research into the more nuanced roles intervention and social network factors may play in achieving intervention outcomes, making it difficult to understand how different aspects of the intervention worked (or did not). This study applied aspects of diffusion of innovations theory to explore how SASA!, a community mobilisation approach for preventing HIV and violence against women, diffused within intervention communities and the factors that influenced the uptake of new ideas and behaviours around intimate partner relationships and violence. METHODS: This paper is based on a qualitative study of couples living in SASA communities and secondary analysis of endline quantitative data collected as part of a cluster randomised control trial designed to evaluate the impact of the SASA! INTERVENTION: The primary trial was conducted in eight communities in Kampala, Uganda between 2007 and 2012. The secondary analysis of follow up survey data used multivariate logistic regression to examine associations between intervention exposure and interpersonal communication, and relationship change (n = 928). The qualitative study used in-depth interviews (n = 20) and framework analysis methods to explore the intervention attributes that facilitated engagement with the intervention and uptake of new ideas and behaviours in intimate relationships. RESULTS: We found communication materials and mid media channels generated awareness and knowledge, while the concurrent influence from interpersonal communication with community-based change agents and social network members more frequently facilitated changes in behaviour. The results indicate combining community mobilisation components, programme content that reflects peoples' lives and direct support through local change agents can facilitate diffusion and powerful collective change processes in communities. CONCLUSIONS: This study makes clear the value of applying diffusion of innovations theory to illuminate how complex public health intervention evaluations effect change. It also contributes to our knowledge of partner violence prevention in a low-income, urban East African context. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT00790959 . Registered 13th November 2008.

Exploring Couples' Processes of Change in the Context of SASA!, a Violence Against Women and HIV Prevention Intervention in Uganda.

There is now a growing body of research indicating that prevention interventions can reduce intimate partner violence (IPV); much less is known, however, about how couples exposed to these interventions experience the change process, particularly in low-income countries. Understanding the dynamic process that brings about the cessation of IPV is essential for understanding how interventions work (or don't) to reduce IPV. This study aimed to provide a better understanding of how couples' involvement with SASA!-a violence against women and HIV-related community mobilisation intervention developed by Raising Voices in Uganda-influenced processes of change in relationships. Qualitative data were collected from each partner in separate in-depth interviews following the intervention. Dyadic analysis was conducted using framework analysis methods. Study findings suggest that engagement with SASA! contributed to varied experiences and degrees of change at the individual and relationship levels. Reflection around healthy relationships and communication skills learned through SASA! activities or community activists led to more positive interaction among many couples, which reduced conflict and IPV. This nurtured a growing trust and respect between many partners, facilitating change in longstanding conflicts and generating greater intimacy and love as well as increased partnership among couples to manage economic challenges. This study draws attention to the value of researching and working with both women, men and couples to prevent IPV and suggests IPV prevention interventions may benefit from the inclusion of relationship skills building and support within the context of community mobilisation interventions.

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

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.

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.

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.

Help-Seeking Within the Context of Patriarchy for Domestic Violence in Urban Uganda.

This study in urban Kampala contributes to a growing evidence base about the complex contexts within which women make decisions about reporting domestic violence. Based on an intersecting theoretical lens of structural violence, power, and the body, findings suggested that women reported to formal structures primarily for severe physical or economic abuse. Women did not report less severe abuse, and often abandoned reporting even severe abuse, because of the overarching structural patriarchy and violence that exists, as well as women's habitus that includes the embodiment of social norms that sanction reporting. Yet, while overwhelmingly women are discouraged from reporting domestic abuse, there were important signs of change.

A Comparative Analysis of Gender Discrepancy Stress, Attitudes toward Intimate Partner Violence, and Perpetration among Young Adults in the USA and Uganda.

BACKGROUND: There is a dearth of data on the modifiable factors that contribute to violence in low- and middle-income countries, including attitudes regarding intimate partner violence (IPV) and perceptions of gender identity. We examined these factors using a cross-cultural comparison between young adults in Uganda and the United States. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to young adults aged 18 to 25 in Uganda (n = 300) and the U.S. (n = 300). Survey questions assessed demographics, attitudes toward IPV, IPV victimization and perpetration, gender discrepancy, discrepancy stress, and alcohol use. We conducted chi-square tests, as well as bivariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses, separately for participants in each country. RESULTS: The prevalence of IPV perpetration differed significantly by country for men (58.06% in the U.S. vs. 42.73% in Uganda; p = 0.03) and women (40.00% in the U.S. vs. 14.00% in Uganda; p < 0.01). IPV victimization differed by country for men (67.74% in the U.S. vs. 51.82% in Uganda; p = 0.02) but not for women. Gender discrepancy and discrepancy stress also varied by country and by sex and were higher in the U.S. for both men and women. IPV victimization was a common risk factor for adults in both Uganda (Adj. OR = 23.47; 95% CI: 7.79, 70.22) and the U.S. (Adj. OR = 27.40; 95% CI: 9.97, 75.32). In Uganda, male sex was significantly associated with IPV perpetration in multivariable analyses (Adj. OR = 6.23; 95% CI: 2.45, 15.86), and so were IPV attitudes (Adj. OR = 2.22; 1.20, 4.10). In the U.S., a likely alcohol use disorder (AUD) was also significantly associated with IPV perpetration (Adj. OR = 7.11; 95% CI: 2.25, 22.54). CONCLUSIONS: Permissive IPV attitudes were associated with IPV perpetration among Ugandan participants, while likely AUD was associated with perpetration in U.S. PARTICIPANTS: Overall, IPV perpetration was significantly higher for U.S. males compared with Ugandan males. These findings indicate that cultural adaptations to global IPV interventions may be necessary to respond to differing needs in different countries.

An examination of physical violence against women and its justification in development settings in Uganda.

This paper uses data from a community cross-sectional survey to examine the factors that are associated with justification of physical violence against women. Results indicate that respondents who were married at the time of the survey were less likely (OR = 0.29; CI = 0.17-0.52) to agree that it is justified for a man to physically assault his partner that their counterparts who were single. The likelihood to justify physical violence was less likely to happen among respondents with primary education (OR = 0.49; CI = 0.39-0.62), secondary education (OR = 0.40; CI = 0.31-0.53) and vocation or tertiary education (OR = 0.28; CI = 0.19-0.41) than among respondents with no education. Protestants were less likely (OR = 0.77; CI = 0.64-0.94) to justify physical violence than the Catholics. Respondents who were not formally employed were more likely (OR = 1.66; CI = 1.32-2.08) to justify physical violence than their counterparts who were in formal employment in the last three months preceding the survey. Respondents who agreed that it is okay for a man to control his partner's movements (OR = 1.27; CI = 1.04-1.55), it is okay for a man to have sex with his wife anytime (OR = 2.28; CI = 1.87-2.78), alcohol is the main reason for violence against women (OR = 1.67; CI = 1.33-2.10), men need sex more than women (OR = 1.57; CI = 1.23-1.99) and women know where to obtain support in case of violence (OR = 1.42; CI = 1.00-2.02) were more likely to justify physical violence than respondents who disagreed. The likelihood to justify physical violence was less among respondents who agreed that: violence is not the only way to deal with disagreements (OR = 0.54; CI = 0.33-0.86), it is possible for men to stop violence (OR = 0.62; CI = 0.47-0.82) and it is acceptable for a woman to ask her partner to use a condom (OR = 0.61; CI = 0.51-0.73) than their counterparts who disagreed. There is need to increase investment in social norms change programmes in order to strengthen contestation of tolerance of physical violence among men and women in Uganda.

Intimate Partner Violence and Associated Risk Factors Among Youth in the Slums of Kampala.

The purpose of this study is to examine the factors associated with intimate partner violence (IPV) among youth living in the slums of Kampala. This analysis is based on a cross-sectional study of youth living in the slums of Kampala conducted in spring 2014 (N = 1,134). The participants (12-18 years of age) were attending Uganda Youth Development Link centers, which serve youth living on the streets and slums of Kampala. Bivariate and multivariable multinomial analyses were conducted to examine risk factors associated with IPV victimization only, IPV perpetration only, and both IPV victimization and perpetration compared with no IPV victimization or perpetration. Among youth who reported having a boyfriend or girlfriend (n = 600), 18.3% (n = 110) reported experiencing both IPV victimization and perpetration, 11.0% (n = 66) reported IPV perpetration only, 7.7% (n = 46) reported experiencing IPV victimization only, and 63.0% (n = 378) reported no IPV experiences. In the multivariable analysis, IPV victimization only was associated with witnessing parental IPV (odds ratio [OR] = 2.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.42, 5.48]), experiencing parental physical abuse (OR = 2.27; 95% CI = [1.16, 4.46]), and neighborhood cohesiveness (OR = 0.73; 95% CI = [0.31, 1.69]). IPV perpetration was only associated with experiencing parental physical abuse (OR = 2.86; 95% CI = [1.62, 5.07]). Reporting both IPV victimization and perpetration was associated with non-problem drinking (OR = 2.03; 95% CI = [1.15, 3.57]), problem drinking (OR = 2.65; 95% CI = [1.48, 4.74]), witnessing parental IPV (OR = 2.94; 95% CI = [1.80, 4.80]), experiencing parental physical abuse (OR = 2.23; 95% CI = [1.38, 3.60]), and homelessness (OR = 1.90; 95% CI = [1.14, 3.16]). Levels of IPV victimization and perpetration are very high in this population and warrant urgent attention.

Changing the norms that drive intimate partner violence: findings from a cluster randomised trial on what predisposes bystanders to take action in Kampala, Uganda.

INTRODUCTION: Despite widespread calls to end violence against women, there remains limited evidence on how to prevent it. Community-level programmes seek to engage all levels of the community in changing norms that drive intimate partner violence (IPV). However, little is known about what predisposes ordinary people to become active in violence prevention. METHODS: Using data from the SASA! study, a cluster randomised trial of a community mobilisation intervention in Kampala, Uganda, we explore which community members are most likely to intervene when they witness IPV. A cross-sectional survey of community members (18-49 years) was conducted 4 years after intervention implementation began (2012). Among those who had seen IPV in their community (past year), multivariate logistic regression, disaggregated by sex and trial arm, explored the associations between 'trying to help' and demographics, IPV experience (women)/perpetration (men), childhood abuse experiences, IPV attitudes and SASA! exposure. RESULTS: Overall, SASA! community members were more likely to intervene than their control counterparts (57% vs 31%). In control communities, older age (women), increasing relationship duration (men), talking to neighbours (men) and believing it is okay for a woman to tell if she is experiencing IPV (men) were positively associated with trying to help. In SASA! communities associated factors were increasing relationship duration (women/men), employment (women), talking to neighbours (women), childhood abuse experiences (women), lifetime IPV (women/men), IPV-related attitudes (women/men) and greater SASA! exposure (women/men). CONCLUSIONS: Differing results between intervention and control communities suggest contextual factors may modify the effects of personal characteristics/experiences on helping behaviours. Motivation to act brought about by personal experiences of IPV, for example, might only propel individuals into action if they are equipped with the skills, confidence and support of others to do so. Community mobilisation can help create environments and synergies supportive of action. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00790959. STUDY PROTOCOL: 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.

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 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.

'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.

Violence against women and HIV risk behaviors in Kampala, Uganda: baseline findings from the SASA! Study.

This article presents baseline data from the SASA! (this is the Swahili for 'now') Study, a cluster randomized trial of a community-mobilization intervention to prevent violence against women and HIV/AIDS in Kampala, Uganda. Logistic regression was used to explore associations between intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual risk behaviors, among 1,206 ever-partnered men and women (18-49 years). Twenty-seven percent of women reported past-year experience of physical and/or sexual IPV. Female experience and male perpetration of IPV were strongly associated with sexual risk behaviors. Findings confirm the importance of the SASA! intervention in this setting and endorse integrated strategies for IPV and HIV prevention.

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.