Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31262331›Full record

SynthesisReproductive health2019

Are interventions focused on gender-norms effective in preventing domestic violence against women in low and lower-middle income countries? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Agumasie Semahegn, Kwasi Torpey, Abubakar Manu, Nega Assefa, Gezahegn Tesfaye, Augustine Ankomah

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Reproductive health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Agumasie SemahegnDepartment of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Science, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra, Ghana. agucell@yahoo.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6625-8184
Kwasi TorpeyDepartment of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Science, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra, Ghana.
Abubakar ManuDepartment of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Science, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra, Ghana.
Nega AssefaCollege of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University, Po. Box 235, Harar, Ethiopia.
Gezahegn TesfayeCollege of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University, Po. Box 235, Harar, Ethiopia.
Augustine AnkomahDepartment of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Science, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra, Ghana.

Funding

TDR/WHO The grant number for the University of Ghana is B40300
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne in three women experience intimate partner violence worldwide, according to many primary studies. However, systematic review and meta-analysis of intimate partner violence is very limited. Therefore, we set to summarize the findings of existing primary studies to generate evidence for informed decisions to tackle domestic violence against women in low and lower-middle income countries.

methodsStudies were searched from main databases (Medline via PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PopLine and Web of Science), Google scholar and other relevant sources using electronic and manual techniques. Published and unpublished studies written in English and conducted among women aged (15-49 years) from 1994 to 2017 were eligible. Data were extracted independently by two authors, and recorded in Microsoft Excel sheet. Heterogeneity between included studies was assessed using I

resultsFifty two studies were included in the systematic review. Of these, 33 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of lifetime intimate partner violence was 55% (95% CI: 52, 59%). Of these, main categories were lifetime physical violence [39% (95% CI: 33, 45%); psychological violence [45% (95% CI: 40, 52%)] and sexual violence [20% (95% CI: 17, 23%)]. Furthermore, the pooled prevalence of current intimate partner violence was 38% (95% CI: 34, 43%). Of these, physical violence [25% (95% CI: 21, 28%)]; psychological violence [30% (95% CI: 24, 36%)] and sexual violence [7.0% (95% CI: 6.6, 7.5%)] were the pooled prevalence for the major types of intimate partner violence. In addition, concurrent intimate partner violence was 13% (95% CI: 12, 15%). Individual, relationship, community and societal level factors were associated with intimate partner violence. Traditional community gender-norm transformation, stakeholders' engagement, women's empowerment, intervention integration and policy/legal framework were highly recommended interventions to prevent intimate partner violence.

conclusionLifetime and current intimate partner violence is common and unacceptably high. Therefore, concerned bodies will need to design and implement strategies to transform traditional gender norms, engage stakeholders, empower women and integrate service to prevent violence against women. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: 2017: CRD42017079977 .

Indexed as

Developing CountriesDomestic ViolenceFemaleGender-Based ViolenceHumansDomestic violence against womenMeta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31262331
PMCPMC6604322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.