Compelling, credible, recent, direct impact data
Time to read
less than
1 minute
Read so far

Community Mobilization - IPV Reduction of 16% vs. 12%

0 comments

Strategy researched

Community-level mobilization, promotion of safe HIV disclosure, and risk reduction

Impact achieved

Fewer self-reports of past-year physical IPV - 16% in control groups vs 12% in intervention groups - and of sexual IPV - 13% in control vs 10% in intervention. Also: a reduction in HIV incidence: 1.15 cases per 100 person-years in control vs 0.87 cases per 100 person-years in intervention group.

Country of study

Uganda

Research methodology

Existing cluster randomized cohort

Journal

The Lancet Global Health; 2015

Journal paper title and link

Effectiveness of an integrated intimate partner violence and HIV prevention intervention in Rakai, Uganda: analysis of an intervention in an existing cluster randomised cohort

Excerpt from Abstract

"Compared with control groups, individuals in the SHARE intervention groups had fewer self-reports of past-year physical IPV (346 [16%] of 2127 responders in control groups vs 217 [12%] of 1812 responders in intervention groups; aPRR 0·79, 95% CI 0·67–0·92) and sexual IPV (261 [13%] of 2038 vs 167 [10%] of 1737; 0·80, 0·67–0·97). Incidence of emotional IPV did not differ (409 [20%] of 2039 vs 311 [18%] of 1737; 0·91, 0·79–1·04). SHARE had no effect on male-reported IPV perpetration. At follow-up 2 (after about 35 months) the intervention was associated with a reduction in HIV incidence (1·15 cases per 100 person-years in control vs 0·87 cases per 100 person-years in intervention group; aIRR 0·67, 95% CI 0·46–0·97, p=0·0362)."

Summary at this link

 

Add new comment

Your Priorities, Opportunities and Challenges? Complete the SURVEY

Why the focus on direct impact data?

A common challenge from policy makers, funders, community members, people directly experiencing development issues, and governments is: Demonstrate your Impact. Prove that what you are doing works. The high quality, highly credible data presented on the cards below is designed to help you answer that question for your social change, behaviour change, community engagement, communication and media for development, strategy formulation, policy engagement and funding initiatives. At this link filter the research data to your specific interests and priorities

Why a playing cards design?

There is a physical pack of cards with this data (to get a copy please request through the comment form for any card). The card approach allows for easy identification and selection of relevant direct impact data in any context. For example if talking with a donor and you need to identify proof of impact say "take a look at the 7 of Hearts". Quick access can be provided to high-quality data for many areas of your work – funding, planning, policy, advocacy, community dialogue, training, partner engagement, and more. A card deck is also engaging, easy to use and share, a conversation starter, and a resource - and they are fun and different. So we kept that design for the online images as it can serve similar purposes. 

What are the criteria for inclusion?

The impact data presented meets the following high standard for inclusion criteria:

  • Positive change or trend in a priority development issue;
  • Social change or behaviour change strategy or process;
  • Randomized Control Trial or Systematic Review methodology;
  • High quality peer review journal published;
  • Numeric impact data point
  • Published since 2010.