No abstract

Randomized trials of complex public health interventions generally aim to identify what works, accrediting specific intervention 'products' as effective. This approach often fails to give sufficient consideration to how intervention components interact with each other and with local context. 'Realists' argue that trials misunderstand the scientific method, offer only a 'successionist' approach to causation, which brackets out the complexity of social causation, and fail to ask which interventions work, for whom and under what circumstances. We counter-argue that trials are useful in evaluating social interventions because randomized control groups actually take proper account of rather than bracket out the complexity of social causation. Nonetheless, realists are right to stress understanding of 'what works, for whom and under what circumstances' and to argue for the importance of theorizing and empirically examining underlying mechanisms. We propose that these aims can be (and sometimes already are) examined within randomized trials. Such 'realist' trials should aim to: examine the effects of intervention components separately and in combination, for example using multi-arm studies and factorial trials; explore mechanisms of change, for example analysing how pathway variables mediate intervention effects; use multiple trials across contexts to test how intervention effects vary with context; draw on complementary qualitative and quantitative data; and be oriented towards building and validating 'mid-level' program theories which would set out how interventions interact with context to produce outcomes. This last suggestion resonates with recent suggestions that, in delivering truly 'complex' interventions, fidelity is important not so much in terms of precise activities but, rather, key intervention 'processes' and 'functions'. Realist trials would additionally determine the validity of program theory rather than only examining 'what works' to better inform policy and practice in the long-term.

This paper examines men’s lifetime physical intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration across eight low- and middle-income countries to better understand key risk factors that interventions can target in order to promote gender equality and reduce IPV. We use data from men (n = 7806) that were collected as part of the International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Chile, Croatia, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), India, Mexico, and Rwanda. Results show that there is wide variation across countries for lifetime self-reported physical violence perpetration (range: 17% in Mexico to 45% in DRC), men’s support for equal roles for men and women, and acceptability of violence against women. Across the sample, 31% of men report having perpetrated physical violence against a partner in their lifetime. In multivariate analyses examining risk factors for men ever perpetrating physical violence against a partner, witnessing parental violence was the strongest risk factor, reinforcing previous research suggesting the inter-generational transmission of violence. Additionally, having been involved in fights not specifically with an intimate partner, permissive attitudes towards violence against women, having inequitable gender attitudes, and older age were associated with a higher likelihood of ever perpetrating physical IPV. In separate analyses for each country, we found different patterns of risk factors in countries with high perpetration compared to countries with low perpetration. Findings are interpreted to identify key knowledge gaps and directions for future research, public policies, evaluation, and programming.

Purpose Unaccompanied youth homelessness is a serious concern. Response, however, has been constrained by the absence of credible data on the size and characteristics of the population and reliable means to track youth homelessness over time. We sought to address these gaps. Methods Using a nationally representative phone-based survey (N = 26,161), we solicited household and individual reports on different types of youth homelessness. We collected household reports on adolescents aged 13–17 and young adults aged 18–25, as well as self-reports from young adults aged 18–25. Follow-up interviews with a subsample (n = 150) provided additional information on youth experiences and enabled adjustment for inclusion errors. Results Over a 12-month period, approximately 3.0% of households with 13- to 17-year-olds reported explicit youth homelessness (including running away or being asked to leave) and 1.3% reported experiences that solely involved couch surfing, resulting in an overall 4.3% household prevalence of any homelessness, broadly defined. For 18- to 25-year-olds, household prevalence estimates were 5.9% for explicitly reported homelessness, 6.6% for couch surfing only, and 12.5% overall. The 12-month population prevalence estimates, available only for 18- to 25-year-olds, were 5.2%, 4.5%, and 9.7%, respectively. Incidence rates were about half as high as prevalence rates. Prevalence rates were similar across rural and nonrural counties. Higher risk of homelessness was observed among young parents; black, Hispanic, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) youth; and those who did not complete high school. Conclusions The prevalence and incidence of youth homelessness reveal a significant need for prevention and youth-centric systems and services, as well as strategies to address disproportionate risks of certain subpopulations.