ArticleConflict and health2020
Evaluating the reliability and validity of secondary reporting to measure gender-based violence in conflict and disaster.
Article in Conflict and health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Violence against women and girls research: Leveraging gains across disciplines.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Insights into perceptions, responses, and challenges experienced by women and girls' survivors of sexual violence and their communities in rural Guinea, 2020.Frontiers in global women's health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurately identifying the magnitude of gender-based violence (GBV) in humanitarian settings is hindered by logistical and methodological complexities. The 'Neighborhood Method', an adapted household survey that uses primary and secondary reporting to assess the prevalence of GBV in humanitarian settings, reduces the length of time and cost associated with traditional surveys. Primary female adult respondents disclose incidents of physical violence, intimate and non-intimate partner rape for themselves, other females in their homes (standard reporting) and other women and children in their social networks (secondary reporting). This study examines the reliability and validity of this inclusion of secondary reporting to determine the comparability of the Neighborhood Method to a traditional survey approach.
methodsDrawing on data from 1180 women reporting on 3744 females in respondent households and 15,086 in neighboring households across four humanitarian settings (Ethiopia/ Somalia, Liberia, Sri Lanka, and Uganda), reliability of secondary reporting was measured through intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Cohen's kappas. Validity was assessed using two-sample z-tests for differences between standard versus secondary reporting.
resultsPrevalence estimates comparing a respondent's household with a neighboring household show closer agreement (ICC: 0.999-0.986) than self-reports vs. secondary reporting on a female counterpoint in a neighboring home (ICC: 0.939-0.98). Kappa statistics analyzing the reliability of two separate neighbors reporting on a third neighbor showed moderate agreement beyond chance alone (κ = 0.45 for physical violence and 0.48 for rape). Prevalence rates corresponded between standard and secondary reports (i.e. showed no statistical difference) in 18 out of 24 compared populations.
conclusionsFor prevalence of GBV, secondary reporting about neighbors can serve as a useful adjunct to standard survey methodology. Findings offer important initial insights into the consistency and accuracy of secondary reporting as a tool for field epidemiologists in humanitarian settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.