SASA! Together: An evolution of the SASA! approach to prevent violence against women.

One in three women globally will experience intimate partner violence (IPV) with devastating consequences for individual survivors, their families and communities. While prevalence remains high, violence against women is not inevitable and community mobilization approaches have emerged as particularly promising for transforming the gender inequitable norms and practices that underlie violence. The SASA! Activist Kit to Prevent Violence Against Women (SASA!), developed by Raising Voices in 2008, provides a theory-based approach for mobilizing communities to transform power imbalances between women and men through critical discussion and positive action. In this article, we provide the rational for revising SASA! after ten years of program learning and formal research. We aim to contribute to the knowledge base around what works to prevent IPV by describing the core enhancements in the revised version--called SASA! Together-and linking these changes to Raising Voices' program learning and broader advancements in the field. In addition, we reflect on how current debates-such as how best to "scale up" violence prevention programs-were considered and resolved in SASA! Together. The paper concludes by sharing lessons learned that may provide guidance for future revisions development and revisions of evidenced-based programs.

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.

On the CUSP: the politics and prospects of scaling social norms change programming.

In the past decades, donors and development actors have been increasingly mindful of the evidence to support long-term, dynamic social norms change. This paper draws lessons and implications on scaling social norms change initiatives for gender equality to prevent violence against women and girls (VAWG) and improve sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), from the Community for Understanding Scale Up (CUSP). CUSP is a group of nine organisations working across four regions with robust experience in developing evidence-based social norms change methodologies and supporting their scale-up across various regions and contexts. More specifically, the paper elicits learning from methodologies and experiences from five CUSP members - GREAT, IMAGE, SASA!, Stepping Stones, and Tostan. The discussion raises political questions around the current donor landscape including those positioned to assume leadership to take such methodologies to scale, and the current evaluation paradigm to measure social norms change at scale. CUSP makes the following recommendations for donors and implementers to scale social norms initiatives effectively and ethically: invest in longer-term programming, ensure fidelity to values of the original programmes, fund women's rights organisations, prioritise accountability to their communities and demands, critically examine the government and marketplace's role in scale, and rethink evaluation approaches to produce evidence that guides scale-up processes and fully represents the voices of activists and communities from the Global South.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Rigged or rigorous? Partnerships for research and evaluation of complex social problems: Lessons from the field of violence against women and girls.

There is growing demand for robust evidence to address complex social phenomena such as violence against women and girls (VAWG). Research partnerships between scientists and non-governmental or international organizations (NGO/IO) are increasingly popular, but can pose challenges, including concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Drawing on our experience collaborating on VAWG research, we describe challenges and contributions that NGO/IO and academic partners can make at different stages of the research process and the effects that collaborations can have on scientific inquiry. Partners may struggle with differing priorities and misunderstandings about roles, limitations, and intentions. Benefits of partnerships include a shared vision of study goals, differing and complementary expertise, mutual respect, and a history of constructive collaboration. Our experience suggests that when investigating multi-faceted social problems, instead of 'rigging' study results, research collaborations can strengthen scientific rigor and offer the greatest potential for impact in the communities we seek to serve.

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.

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.

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.

Prevention of violence against women and girls: lessons from practice.

This Series paper describes programming to prevent violence against women and girls, and emphasises the importance of systematic, sustained programming across the social ecology (ie, the delicate equilibrium of interacting social, institutional, cultural, and political contexts of people's lives) to transform gender-power inequalities. Effective prevention policy and programming is founded on five core principles: first, analysis and actions to prevent violence across the social ecology (individual, interpersonal, community, and societal); second, intervention designs based on an intersectional gender-power analysis; third, theory-informed models developed on the basis of evidence; fourth, sustained investment in multisector interventions; and finally, aspirational programming that promotes personal and collective thought, and enables activism on women's and girls' rights to violence-free lives. Prevention programming of the future will depend on all of us having a vision of, and a commitment to, gender equality to make violence-free lives for women and girls a reality.

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.

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.