Violence outcomes in later adolescence with the Good School Toolkit-Primary: a nonrandomized controlled trial in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether the Good School Toolkit-Primary violence prevention intervention was associated with reduced victimisation and perpetration of peer and intimate partner violence four years later, and if any associations were moderated by sex and early adolescent: family connectedness, socio-economic status, and experience of violence outside of school. METHODS: Drawing on schools involved in a randomised controlled trial of the intervention, we used a quasi-experimental design to compare violence outcomes between those who received the intervention during our trial (n = 1388), and those who did not receive the intervention during or after the trial (n = 522). Data were collected in 2014 (mean age 13.4, SD 1.5 years) from participants in 42 schools in Luwero District, Uganda, and 2018/19 from the same participants both in and out of school (mean age 18, SD: 1.77 years). We compared children who received the Good School Toolkit-Primary, a whole school violence prevention intervention, during a randomised controlled trial, to those who did not receive the intervention during or after the trial. Outcomes were measured using items adapted from the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Child Abuse Screening Tool-Child Institutional. We used mixed-effect multivariable logistic regression, with school fitted as a random-effect to account for clustering. RESULTS: 1910 adolescents aged about 16-19 years old were included in our analysis. We found no evidence of an average long-term intervention effect on our primary outcome, peer violence victimization at follow-up (aOR = 0.81, 95%CI = 0.59-1.11); or for any secondary outcome. However, exposure to the intervention was associated with: later reductions in peer violence, for adolescents with high family connectedness (aOR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99), but not for those with low family connectedness (aOR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.6; p-interaction = 0.06); and reduced later intimate partner violence perpetration among males with high socio-economic status (aOR = 0.32, 95%CI 0.11 to 0.90), but not low socio-economic status (aOR = 1.01 95%CI 0.37 to 2.76, p-interaction = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Young adolescents in connected families and with higher socio-economic status may be better equipped to transfer violence prevention skills from primary school to new relationships as they get older. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01678846, registration date 24 August 2012. Protocol for this paper:  https://www.researchprotocols.org/2020/12/e20940 .

The association between violence victimization and subsequent unplanned pregnancy among adolescent girls in Uganda: Do primary schools make a difference?

Violence victimization is a risk factor for adolescent pregnancy in high-income, low violence prevalence countries, but longitudinal data are lacking from settings where violence and adolescent pregnancy are common, including sub-Saharan Africa. We also know little about contextual factors which modify this association. We analyzed data from the Contexts of Violence in Adolescence Cohort (CoVAC) study in Luwero District, Uganda. Primary students in 42 schools completed surveys in 2014 (Wave 1) and 2018 (Wave 2). Our outcome was unplanned pregnancy. Our exposure was violence victimization, including any violence, type of violence (physical, emotional, sexual), perpetrator group (teacher, peer, family member), and polyvictimization. We fit mixed-effects logistic regression models and examined school factors (e.g., connectedness, absenteeism) as effect modifiers, using data from students (n = 3,431) and staff (n = 591) at the 42 schools. 1,449 girls were included in analyses (78% follow-up). At Wave 1, 88% (n = 1,281/1,449) reported any violence (mean age = 12.73, SD = 1.44 years). At Wave 2, 13.9% (n = 201/1,449) reported an unplanned pregnancy. In adjusted models, compared to no violence, significant associations (p<0.05) were observed for any violence (OR = 1.99, 95%CI = 1.03-3.85), physical violence (OR = 1.96, 95%CI = 1.02-3.79), teacher violence (OR = 1.96, 95%CI = 1.01-3.79), peer violence (OR = 2.00, 95%CI = 1.00-4.03), family violence (OR = 2.23, 95%CI = 1.07-4.65), violence from one perpetrator group (OR = 2.04, 95%CI = 1.01-4.15), and violence from three perpetrator groups (OR = 2.21, 95%CI = 0.99-4.95). Sexual and emotional violence were associated in crude but not adjusted analyses. School and peer connectedness modified the association (p<0.05); girls who experienced violence had higher odds of unplanned pregnancy in schools with lower versus higher connectedness. Violence victimization in early adolescence is strongly associated with subsequent unplanned pregnancy among adolescent girls in Uganda but attending schools with more school or peer connectedness attenuated this link. Interventions should seek to reduce violence against girls to prevent unplanned pregnancy. Interventions promoting positive connections to school may be especially important for violence victims.

Remote methods for research on violence against women and children: lessons and challenges from research during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Collecting data to understand violence against women and children during and after the COVID-19 pandemic is essential to inform violence prevention and response efforts. Although researchers across fields have pivoted to remote rather than in-person data collection, remote research on violence against women, children and young people poses particular challenges. As a group of violence researchers, we reflect on our experiences across eight studies in six countries that we redesigned to include remote data collection methods. We found the following areas were crucial in fulfilling our commitments to participants, researchers, violence prevention and research ethics: (1) designing remote data collection in the context of strong research partnerships; (2) adapting data collection approaches; (3) developing additional safeguarding processes in the context of remote data collection during the pandemic; and (4) providing remote support for researchers. We discuss lessons learnt in each of these areas and across the research design and implementation process, and summarise key considerations for other researchers considering remote data collection on violence.

Long-Term Outcomes of the Good School Toolkit Primary School Violence Prevention Intervention Among Adolescents: Protocol for a Nonrandomized Quasi-Experimental Study.

BACKGROUND: Violence against children in schools is a global public health problem. There is growing evidence that school-based interventions can be effective in reducing violence against children in schools. However, there is little evidence on the long-term impact of such interventions. The Good School Toolkit, developed by Raising Voices, a Uganda-based nonprofit organization, is a whole-school violence prevention intervention that aims to change the operational culture of primary schools. In 2014, the Good School Toolkit was evaluated through a cluster randomized controlled trial (Good Schools Study) and found to reduce teacher-to-student and student-to-student violence. OBJECTIVE: This protocol describes quantitative analyses to explore long-term outcomes of the Good School Toolkit intervention among adolescents in Uganda, including the extent to which it is associated with peer-violence victimization (primary outcome) and peer-violence perpetration, intimate-partner violence, acceptance of teacher-violence, equitable gender attitudes, agency, self-regulation, peer connectedness, social assets, psychological assets, and retention in school (secondary outcomes). METHODS: This is a nonrandomized quasi-experimental 4-year follow-up study of adolescents who attended the 42 Good Schools Study primary schools in 2014; 21 schools initiated the Good School Toolkit intervention during the trial from 2012, and 19 schools initiated the intervention after the trial (during the later delivery phase) from 2015; 2 schools did not implement the intervention. Students in the final school grade (Primary 7) during 2014 of the 19 primary schools in the later delivery phase are expected to have left school prior to toolkit delivery in 2015. Wave 1 data were collected in 2014 from 3431 grade Primary 5 to Primary 7 school students aged 11-14 years; these students were followed up in 2018-2019 when aged 16-19 years and invited to participate in the Wave 2 survey. Data were collected in face-to-face interviews by trained Ugandan field researchers. Toolkit exposure groups are defined as exposed during the Good Schools Study trial (from 2012), as exposed during later delivery (from 2015), or not exposed including those expected to have completed Primary 7 prior to later delivery or from the 2 schools that did not implement the toolkit. Associations between outcomes at Wave 2 and toolkit exposure groups will be analyzed using mixed-effect multivariable logistic and linear regression models for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. This analysis is exploratory and aims to generate hypotheses on if, and under what circumstances, the toolkit influences later adolescent outcomes. RESULTS: Data collection was completed in August 2019. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first long-term follow-up study of adolescents exposed to a school-based violence-prevention intervention in sub-Saharan Africa. If the intervention reduces violence and improves other outcomes in later adolescence, then this study supports primary school interventions as key to achieving long-term population impacts. The pattern of effects will inform where reinforced or additional interventions are needed. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/20940.

Implementation of the Good School Toolkit in Uganda: a quantitative process evaluation of a successful violence prevention program.

BACKGROUND: The Good School Toolkit, a complex behavioural intervention designed by Raising Voices a Ugandan NGO, reduced past week physical violence from school staff to primary students by an average of 42% in a recent randomised controlled trial. This process evaluation quantitatively examines what was implemented across the twenty-one intervention schools, variations in school prevalence of violence after the intervention, factors that influence exposure to the intervention and factors associated with students' experience of physical violence from staff at study endline. METHODS: Implementation measures were captured prospectively in the twenty-one intervention schools over four school terms from 2012 to 2014 and Toolkit exposure captured in the student (n = 1921) and staff (n = 286) endline cross-sectional surveys in 2014. Implementation measures and the prevalence of violence are summarised across schools and are assessed for correlation using Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient. Regression models are used to explore individual factors associated with Toolkit exposure and with physical violence at endline. RESULTS: School prevalence of past week physical violence from staff against students ranged from 7% to 65% across schools at endline. Schools with higher mean levels of teacher Toolkit exposure had larger decreases in violence during the study. Students in schools categorised as implementing a 'low' number of program school-led activities reported less exposure to the Toolkit. Higher student Toolkit exposure was associated with decreased odds of experiencing physical violence from staff (OR: 0.76, 95%CI: 0.67-0.86, p-value< 0.001). Girls, students reporting poorer mental health and students in a lower grade were less exposed to the toolkit. After the intervention, and when adjusting for individual Toolkit exposure, some students remained at increased risk of experiencing violence from staff, including, girls, students reporting poorer mental health, students who experienced other violence and those reporting difficulty with self-care. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that increasing students and teachers exposure to the Good School Toolkit within schools has the potential to bring about further reductions in violence. Effectiveness of the Toolkit may be increased by further targeting and supporting teachers' engagement with girls and students with mental health difficulties. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov , NCT01678846, August 24th 2012.

The Good School Toolkit for reducing physical violence from school staff to primary school students: a cluster-randomised controlled trial in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Violence against children from school staff is widespread in various settings, but few interventions address this. We tested whether the Good School Toolkit-a complex behavioural intervention designed by Ugandan not-for-profit organisation Raising Voices-could reduce physical violence from school staff to Ugandan primary school children. METHODS: We randomly selected 42 primary schools (clusters) from 151 schools in Luwero District, Uganda, with more than 40 primary 5 students and no existing governance interventions. All schools agreed to be enrolled. All students in primary 5, 6, and 7 (approximate ages 11-14 years) and all staff members who spoke either English or Luganda and could provide informed consent were eligible for participation in cross-sectional baseline and endline surveys in June-July 2012 and 2014, respectively. We randomly assigned 21 schools to receive the Good School Toolkit and 21 to a waitlisted control group in September, 2012. The intervention was implemented from September, 2012, to April, 2014. Owing to the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to mask assignment. The primary outcome, assessed in 2014, was past week physical violence from school staff, measured by students' self-reports using the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Child Abuse Screening Tool-Child Institutional. Analyses were by intention to treat, and are adjusted for clustering within schools and for baseline school-level means of continuous outcomes. The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01678846. FINDINGS: No schools left the study. At 18-month follow-up, 3820 (92·4%) of 4138 randomly sampled students participated in a cross-sectional survey. Prevalence of past week physical violence was lower in the intervention schools (595/1921, 31·0%) than in the control schools (924/1899, 48·7%; odds ratio 0·40, 95% CI 0·26-0·64, p<0·0001). No adverse events related to the intervention were detected, but 434 children were referred to child protective services because of what they disclosed in the follow-up survey. INTERPRETATION: The Good School Toolkit is an effective intervention to reduce violence against children from school staff in Ugandan primary schools. FUNDING: MRC, DfID, Wellcome Trust, Hewlett Foundation.