Vandana Sharma

Gender-transformative programing targeting couples is an important strategy to reduce intimate partner violence (IPV), but questions around efficacy and safety remain. This qualitative study explores indications of change and unintended consequences of the gender-transformative Unite for a Better Life (UBL) intervention, using data from the couples’ and control arms of a cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) in Ethiopia. The cRCT found no impact on physical and psychological IPV and weak evidence of reductions in sexual IPV in the couples’ arm. We analyzed 33 facilitator feedback questionnaires and 29 in-depth interviews (IDIs) among couples conducted approximately 30-months post intervention; 14 participated in UBL delivered to couples, and 15 were from the control arm. IDIs were conducted separately with each member of the couple and analyzed thematically in Dedoose to explore indications of change attributed to UBL. UBL couples attributed improved household task-sharing, communication, and joint decision-making to the program. Men and women developed more gender-equitable attitudes, leading to more fulfilling relationships. Additionally, most participants in violent relationships reported that UBL led to a reduction or cessation of physical and psychological IPV, and a complete cessation of sexual IPV. These effects were largely attributed to shifts at the individual level for men. Men developed better anger management skills, reduced their alcohol consumption, and increased their knowledge around the consequences of IPV. At the relational level, couples reported increased communication, particularly around sexual desire, and reduced conflict. Additionally, participants reported normative shifts, including decreased acceptance of IPV. There were no reports of changes in control participants nor of major unintended consequences. When delivered to couples, UBL shows promise in shifting individual-level male factors and relational dynamics and reducing conflict and IPV. This suggests that engaging men in couples can be an effective and safe strategy for IPV prevention. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-025-25838-8.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is the most common form of gender-based violence affecting women and girls worldwide and is exacerbated in humanitarian settings. There is evidence that neighborhood social processes influence IPV. Perceived neighborhood social cohesion (P-NSC)—a measure of community trust, attachment, safety, and reciprocity—may be protective against women’s experience of and men’s perpetration of IPV and controlling behaviors. A quantitative social network study, comprised of individual verbally-administered surveys, was conducted in Bokolmayo refugee camp in Dollo Ado, Ethiopia in 2019. In total, 302 Somali refugees (147 women and 155 men), sampled using snowball sampling, participated in the data collection. Logistic regression was used to examine P-NSC and its association with IPV to inform an IPV and HIV prevention intervention. Low P-NSC and men’s perpetration of physical IPV in the past month were strongly associated (adjusted AOR = 23.6, 95% CI: 6.2–89.9). Low P-NSC, conversely, was associated with decreased odds of women’s experiences of controlling behaviors by an intimate partner in the past year (AOR = 0.1, 95% CI: 0.0–0.5). Women’s experiences of other forms of IPV, including physical, sexual, and emotional IPV within the past year, were not associated with P-NSC in adjusted models; P-NSC was significantly associated with all forms of IPV in unadjusted models. Social cohesion programs and other neighborhood approaches to improve P-NSC should be explored as potential avenues to prevent and reduce IPV, with a focus on male IPV and controlling behavior perpetration.

Most impact evaluations of intimate partner violence (IPV) prevention interventions use binary measures of “any” versus “no” physical and/or sexual IPV as their primary outcome measure, missing opportunities to capture nuance. In this study, we reanalyzed secondary data from six randomized controlled trials conducted in low- and middle-income countries—Bandebereho (Rwanda), Becoming One (Uganda), Indashyikirwa (Rwanda), MAISHA CRT01, MAISHA CRT02 (Tanzania), Stepping Stones Creating Futures (South Africa), and Unite for a Better Life (Ethiopia), to assess how different conceptualizations and coding of IPV variables can influence interpretations of the impact of an intervention. We compared the standard outcome measures to new measures that reflect the severity and intensity of violence and whether interventions prevent new cases of IPV or reduce or stop ongoing violence. Results indicate that traditional binary indicators masked some of the more subtle intervention effects, and the use of the new indicators allowed for a better understanding of the impacts of the interventions. Conclusions on whether a program is perceived “to work” are highly influenced by the IPV outcomes that the investigators choose to report, and how they are measured and coded. Lack of attention to outcome choice and measurement could lead to prematurely abandoning strategies useful for violence reduction or missing essential insights into how programs may or may not affect IPV. While these results must be interpreted cautiously, given differences in intervention types, the underlying prevalence of violence, sociodemographic factors, sample sizes, and other contextual differences across the trial sites, they can help us move toward a new approach to reporting multiple outcomes that allow us to unpack the “impact” of an intervention by assessing intervention effect by the severity of violence and type of prevention, whether primary and secondary.

Romantic jealousy is a well-known relational driver of intimate partner violence (IPV), but is under-studied among displaced and polygynous populations. This study aimed to explore factors that elicit jealousy among Somali refugees in the Bokolmayo Refugee camp in Ethiopia, and the pathways leading from jealousy to IPV against women and men, to inform interventions. We conducted an exploratory, thematic analysis of 30 in-depth interviews with both women and men who were Somali refugees, as well as elders and religious leaders, organizational and service providers, policy makers, and host community members. We found that jealousy experienced by women was elicited by an unequal distribution of money and affection between co-wives, which was exacerbated by displacement-related economic hardship, and women in monogamous partnerships suspecting their husband of having other relationships. The jealousy experienced by men was elicited by their wives’ increased financial independence and interactions with other men when working outside of the home, which became more common because of displacement-related economic hardship and relaxed patriarchal gender norms. IPV interventions should address jealousy and controlling behaviors in all relationship types. Addressing conflict and relationship dynamics in polygynous households and in humanitarian settings may require specialized content, acknowledging the complex interactions and resource allocation between co-wives. Gender-transformative interventions that move away from masculinities that are built on the provider role and the introduction of alternative masculinities could also be effective in reducing IPV in this and other similar contexts.

Background: Risks of gender-based violence (GBV) are exacerbated in humanitarian crises. GBV risk mitigation interventions aim to reduce exposure to GBV and ensure that humanitarian response actions and services themselves do not cause harm or increase the risk of violence. The 2015 IASC Guidelines for Integrating Gender-Based Violence Interventions in Humanitarian Action (‘GBV Guidelines’) are a globally endorsed resource that provides comprehensive guidance for all humanitarian actors and sectors on GBV risk mitigation. While uptake of GBV risk mitigation approaches across multiple humanitarian sectors has occurred, there is limited understanding of how to monitor and evaluate GBV risk mitigation interventions.Methods: A multi-methods study was conducted in 2019 to identify promising practices for the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of GBV risk mitigation interventions in non-GBV sectors and to develop a set of illustrative case examples. The study included a comprehensive desk review of 145 articles, documents and resources from the published and grey literature, as well as 11 in-depth interviews and five focus group discussions with humanitarian practitioners. Using Dedoose software and a codebook developed a priori, qualitative data were transcribed and coded and a content analysis was conducted. Excerpts focusing on promising practices from the qualitative data and the desk review were analyzed together and grouped by thematic area. Similar promising practices were combined and consolidated to create a final list, and case examples were identified.Results: Current promising practices for M&E of GBV risk mitigation activities in the following categories are described: (1) Coordination and collaboration, (2) Designing M&E approaches and tools for GBV risk mitigation activities, (3) Contextualization, (4) Developing and selecting indicators, (5) Data collection, (6) Data analysis and use of findings, (7) Potential safety concerns for affected populations and staff, and (8) Staff capacity and engagement. These are supplemented with seven diverse case examples to illustrate application of the promising practices using real-world examples.Conclusion: This paper highlights current promising practices for M&E of GBV risk mitigation interventions in humanitarian response. Further application of these practices—alongside ongoing documentation of emerging approaches—will be critical to ensuring that GBV risk mitigation interventions are more rigorously tested with the aim of building the evidence base on the effectiveness of different GBV risk mitigation interventions within specific humanitarian sectors.

Available evidence indicates that the COVID-19 pandemic and response measures may lead to increased risk of gender-based violence (GBV), including in humanitarian contexts. This study examined the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of humanitarian practitioners related to GBV risk mitigation approaches during COVID-19 in order to refine current guidance and inform future materials. A global, online cross-sectional survey of humanitarian practitioners was conducted between November 2020 and April 2021. We calculated descriptive statistics and used Chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests to compare knowledge, attitudes, and practices among GBV specialists and non-specialists. Of 170 respondents, 58% were female and 44% were GBV specialists. Almost all (95%) of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they have a role to play in GBV risk mitigation. Compared to GBV specialists, a higher proportion of non-specialists reported little to no knowledge on GBV risk mitigation global guidance (38% vs. 7%, p < 0.001) and on how to respond to a disclosure of GBV (18% vs. 3%, p < 0.001). Respondents reported several barriers to integrating GBV risk mitigation into their work during COVID-19, including insufficient funding, capacity, knowledge, and guidance. Efforts to mainstream GBV risk mitigation actions should continue and intensify, leveraging the lessons and experiences generated thus far.

Objectives To systematically document measurement approaches used in the monitoring and evaluation of gender-based violence (GBV) risk mitigation activities, categorise the types of available literature produced by sector, identify existing tools and measures and identify knowledge gaps within the humanitarian sector. Design Systematic mapping and in-depth review. Data sources: Pubmed, Global Health, PsychInfo, ReliefWeb, OpenGrey (grey literature), Google Scholar, Web of Science (Social Science Index) Eligibility criteria: a structured search strategy was systematically applied to 17 databases as well as registers, websites and other resources to identify materials published between 1 January 2005 and 15 May 2019. Data extraction and synthesis: Those resources that met the inclusion criteria underwent a comprehensive full-text review. A detailed matrix was developed and key data from each resource were extracted to allow for the assessment of patterns in thematic areas. Results A total of 2108 documents were screened. Overall, 145 documents and 112 tools were reviewed, representing 10 different humanitarian sectors. While numerous resources exist, many lack sufficient information on how to monitor outputs or outcomes of GBV risk mitigation activities. There is also limited guidance on how to integrate the measurement of GBV risk mitigation into existing monitoring and evaluation frameworks. Those reports that aimed to measure GBV risk mitigation activities mostly employed qualitative methods and few measured the impact of a GBV risk mitigation with robust research designs. Conclusions Recent efforts to adapt humanitarian response to COVID-19 have highlighted new and existing challenges for GBV risk mitigation. There is a significant gap in the evidence base around the effectiveness of GBV risk mitigation across all sectors. Understanding and strengthening measurement approaches in GBV risk mitigation remains a critical task for humanitarian response.