Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2015 | Research article | Ausgabe 1/2015 Open Access

BMC Public Health 1/2015

Systematic review of structural interventions for intimate partner violence in low- and middle-income countries: organizing evidence for prevention

Zeitschrift:
BMC Public Health > Ausgabe 1/2015
Autoren:
Christine Bourey, Whitney Williams, Erin Elizabeth Bernstein, Rob Stephenson
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​s12889-015-2460-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

CB designed the study protocol, screened all articles, led data collection and interpretation of results, conceptualized and prepared the original submission, and revised the article after review. WW and EB reviewed full-text articles and performed all data extraction. WW additionally assisted with creation of tables and preparation of the original submission. RS collaborated on study design, provided technical assistance, and reviewed the original submission and final paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Abstract

Background

Despite growing attention to intimate partner violence (IPV) globally, systematic evaluation of evidence for IPV prevention remains limited. This particularly is true in relation to low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), where researchers often organize evidence by current interventions strategies rather than comprehensive models of IPV. Applying the concept of structural interventions to IPV, we systematically reviewed the quantitative impact of such interventions for prevention of male-to-female IPV in LMIC in order to (a) highlight current opportunities for IPV research and programming and (b) demonstrate how structural interventions may provide an organizing framework through which to build an evidence base for IPV prevention.

Methods

We identified articles by systematically searching PubMed and Web of Science, reviewing references of selected studies, and contacting 23 experts. Inclusion criteria included original research, written in English, published between January 2000 and May 2015 in the peer-reviewed literature. Studies evaluated the quantitative impact of structural interventions for the prevention of male-to-female IPV in LMIC through (a) IPV incidence or prevalence or (b) secondary outcomes theoretically linked to IPV by study authors. After initial screening, we evaluated full text articles for inclusion and extracted data on study characteristics, outcomes, and risk of bias, using forms developed for the review.

Results

Twenty articles (16 studies) from nine countries met inclusion criteria, representing 13 randomized control trials and seven additional studies, all of which reported results from economic, social, or combined economic and social interventions. Standardized at p < 0.05 or 95 % confidence intervals not including unity, 13 studies demonstrated statistically significant effects for at least one primary or secondary outcome, including decreased IPV and controlling behaviors; improved economic wellbeing; enhanced relationship quality, empowerment, or social capital; reduced acceptability of IPV; new help seeking behaviors; and more equitable gender norms. Risk of bias, however, varied in meaningful ways.

Conclusions

Our findings support the potential effectiveness of structural interventions for IPV prevention. Structural interventions, as an organizing framework, may advance IPV prevention by consolidating available evidence; highlighting opportunities to assess a broader range of interventions, including politico-legal and physical approaches; and emphasizing opportunities to improve evaluation of such interventions.
Zusatzmaterial
Additional file 1: Table S1. PRISMA checklist. (PDF 87 kb)
12889_2015_2460_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Additional file 2: Table S2. Characteristics of interventions and studies. (PDF 191 kb)
12889_2015_2460_MOESM2_ESM.pdf
Additional file 3: Table S3. Analyses of primary outcomes. (PDF 151 kb)
12889_2015_2460_MOESM3_ESM.pdf
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2015

BMC Public Health 1/2015 Zur Ausgabe