Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31321280›Full record

ArticleSSM - population health2019

Household decision-making and its association with intimate partner violence: Examining differences in men's and women's perceptions in Uganda.

Sasha Zegenhagen, Meghna Ranganathan, Ana Maria Buller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SSM - population health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  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

3 authors.

Sasha ZegenhagenLondon School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton St, London, WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom.
Meghna RanganathanDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, United Kingdom.
Ana Maria BullerDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA vast body of evidence identifies intimate partner violence (IPV) as a public health and human rights issue with detrimental health consequences. The exploration of household decision-making, as an indicator of women's empowerment, and its association with IPV has so far yielded mixed results, mostly due to measurement issues. Given the sizeable investment in women's empowerment initiatives, and their potential to improve women's health, it is important to elucidate the relationship between household decision-making and IPV.

methodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of the 2011 Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data to explore the relationship between women's household decision-making and experience of physical IPV. The dependent variable in our analysis was past year physical violence and it was constructed using men's reported perpetration of partner violence (men's questionnaire). Six independent variables were included - one each for men and women's perspectives on who usually makes decisions about the following domains: 1) how money earned is spent, 2) health care, and 3) large household purchases. We ran a probit model, controlling for variables featured in our theoretical framework.

resultsThe association between household decision-making and women's likelihood of experiencing IPV depended on the decision-making domain and on who reported it. Women's reporting on decision-making did not predict their experience of IPV, whereas men's reporting on two decision-making domains (large household purchases and expenditure of husband's earnings) predicted likelihood of women experiencing IPV. Joint decision-making and women's decisions alone in both of these domains were associated with a lower probability of IPV compared to husband's making the decisions alone, where husband's reported decision-making.

conclusionThis study demonstrates that men's views on coupled dynamics should be included in program design and evaluation to provide a more holistic picture of the ecological framework and risk and protective factors of IPV.

Indexed as

Decision-makingDomestic violenceGenderUganda

Identifiers

PMID31321280
PMCPMC6612922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.