ArticleBMJ open2026
Measurement innovation for sensitive behaviours: applying direct and social network-based estimation approaches to intimate partner violence in Burkina Faso and the Democratic Republic of the Congo using cross-sectional data.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the feasibility of the confidante methodology to measure past-year intimate partner violence (IPV) experiences in Burkina Faso and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) through (1) comparison of direct assessment with indirect estimation via the confidante method and (2) assessment of the performance of each confidante method assumption.
designCross-sectional study with nationally and subnationally representative data collected from December 2020 to March 2021 in Burkina Faso (national) and from December 2021 to April 2022 in Kinshasa and Kongo Central, DRC (subnational).
settingBurkina Faso; Kinshasa, DRC; Kongo Central, DRC.
participantsPartnered women (married or cohabiting) aged 15-49 in Burkina Faso (N=3047), Kinshasa, DRC (N=702) and Kongo Central, DRC (N=688) and their partnered confidantes aged 15-49 (N=2064 in Burkina Faso, N=304 in Kinshasa, DRC, N=393 women in Kongo Central, DRC). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Past-year IPV (emotional, physical, sexual, any) comparing differences in prevalence between the direct respondent sample and the indirect confidante sample, adjusting for confidante method assumptions.
resultsThe confidante method produced comparable IPV estimates to respondents' direct reports across sites (35.3% respondent vs 36.1% confidante in Kinshasa, DRC; 29.7% respondent vs 39.0% confidante in Kongo Central, DRC; 25.7% respondent vs 26.0% confidante in Burkina Faso, differences not statistically significant). Of note, there were differences in IPV estimates between respondents and confidantes by IPV subtype, with physical IPV consistently lower among respondents across sites and sexual IPV lower among confidantes in Kinshasa, DRC and Burkina Faso, though generally not statistically significant.
conclusionsThe confidante methodology did not afford advantages over standard, direct assessment for IPV. Overall, findings indicate the reliability of population-based surveys with direct IPV questions when implemented under recommended ethical guidelines, though direct reports are likely undercounts.
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.