Assessing the relationship between agency and peer violence among adolescents aged 10 to 14 years in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo and Blantyre, Malawi: A cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Interpersonal violence has physical, emotional, educational, social, and economic implications. Although there is interest in empowering young people to challenge harmful norms, there is scant research on how individual agency, and, specifically, the "power to" resist or bring about an outcome relates to peer violence perpetration and victimization in early adolescence. This manuscript explores the relationship between individual agency and peer violence perpetration and victimization among very young adolescents (VYAs) living in two urban poor settings in sub-Saharan Africa (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Blantyre, Malawi). METHODS AND FINDINGS: The study draws on two cross-sectional surveys including 2,540 adolescents 10 to 14 years from Kinshasa in 2017 (girls = 49.8% and boys = 50.2%) and 1,213 from Blantyre in 2020 (girls = 50.7% and boys = 49.3%). The sample was school based in Malawi but included in-school and out-of-school participants in Kinshasa due to higher levels of early school dropout. Peer violence in the last 6 months (dependent variable) was defined as a four categorical variable (1) no victimization or perpetration; (2) victimization only; (3) perpetration only; and (4) both victimization and perpetration. Agency was operationalized using 3 scales freedom of movement, voice, and decision-making, which were further divided into tertiles. Univariate analysis and multivariable multinomial logistic regressions were conducted to evaluate the relationships between each agency indicator and peer violence. The multivariable regression adjusted for individual, family, peer, and community level covariates. All analyses were stratified by gender and site. In both sites, adolescents had greater voice and decision-making power than freedom of movement, and boys had greater freedom of movement than girls. Boys in both settings were more likely to report peer violence in the last six months than girls (40% to 50% versus 32% to 40%, p < 0.001), mostly due to higher rates of a perpetration-victimization overlap (18% to 23% versus 10% to 15%, p < 0.001). Adolescents reporting the greatest freedom of movement (Tertile 3) (with the exception of girls in Kinshasa) had a greater relative risk ratio (RRR) of reporting a perpetrator-victim overlap (boys Kinshasa RRR = 1.9 (1.2 to 2.8, p = 0.003); boys Blantyre RRR = 3.8 (1.7 to 8.3, p = 0.001); and girls Blantyre RRR = 2.4 (1.1 to 5.1, p = 0.03)). Adolescents with the highest decision-making power in Kinshasa also had greater RRR of reporting a perpetrator-victim overlap (boys RRR = 3.0 (1.8 to 4.8, p < 0.001). Additionally, girls and boys in Kinshasa with intermediate decision-making power (tertile 2 versus 1) had a lower RRR of being victimized (Girls RRR = 1.7 (1.02 to 2.7, p = 0.04); Boys RRR = 0.6 (0.4 to 0.9, p = 0.01)). Higher voice among boys in Kinshasa (Tertile 2 RRR = 1.9 (1.2 to 2.9, p = 0.003) and Tertile 3 1.8 (1.2 to 2.8, p = 0.009)) and girls in Blantyre (Tertile 2 2.0 (1.01 to 3.9, p = 0.048)) was associated with a perpetrator-victim overlap, and girls with more voice in Blantyre had a greater RRR of being victimized (Tertile 2 RRR = 1.9 (1.1 to 3.1, p = 0.02)). Generally, associations were stronger for boys than girls, and associations often differed when victimization and perpetration occurred in isolation of each other. A main limitation of this study is that the cross-sectional nature of the data does not allow a causal interpretation of the findings, which need further longitudinal exploration to establish temporality. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that peer violence is a gendered experience that is related to young people's agency. This stresses the importance of addressing interpersonal violence in empowerment programs and of including boys who experience the greatest perpetration-victimization overlap.